CAR_Public/071214.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Friday, December 14, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 248

                            Headlines


180 CONNECT: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuits in Three States
180 CONNECT: Employees File FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Florida
ABX AIR: Seeks Dismissal of RICO Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
ACTIVISION INC: Faces Fraud Suit Over Guitar Hero III Video Game  
ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Dismissed from U.S. SRAM Antitrust Suits

AROTECH CORP: Consolidated Securities Complaint Filed in N.Y.
ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS: Still Faces Camellia Island Project Lawsuit
ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS: Still Faces Fla. Suit Over Defective Homes
ASTEA INT'L: Pa. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY: Cal. Wins Favorable Ruling in Air Law Case

BRAVO! BRANDS: Vianale Expands Purpored Securities Class Period
CARROLS CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Motion in Former Workers' Lawsuit
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Cal. Court Mulls Motion to Certify FACTA Suit
DELTA FINANCIAL: Denied Appeal of Labor Suit Summary Judgment
DOMTAR INC: Settles Carbonless Sheets Price Fixing Lawsuits

FAR EAST BROKERS: Recalls Fishing Games for Lead Standard Breach
FLAT GLASS MAKERS: Face Suit in Penn. for Alleged Price Fixing
ILLINOIS: Tazewell Sheriff Sued for Denying Services to Inmate
IRONWOOD COMMS: Faces Wage, Hour Laws Violations Suit in Calif.
KMART: Recalls Pants with Drawstring Posing Entrapment Risk

LONGWOOD MANAGEMENT: Nursing Home Workers to Recoup $4M in Wages
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE: Allowed to Directly Collect Authority Fee
NATIONAL BEEF: 8th Circuit Mulls “Schumacher” Defendants' Appeal
NBC UNIVERSAL: "Lucky X" Game Illegal, Calif. Lawsuit Alleges
OHIO: Settlement Reached in Voyeurism Suit Against Dead Landlord

PROFESSIONAL INVESTMENT: NSW Court Blocks Westpoint-Related Suit
RETAILERS: Accused of Fraudulently Marketing Organic Milk
RJ REYNOLDS: Minn. Appeals Court Revives “Dahl” Lights Lawsuit
SEARS: Recalls Hooded Sweaters Posing Strangulation Hazard
SIMPLICITY INC: Crib Manufacturers Face Suit Over Design Flaw

TEMPUR PEDIC: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. Ga. Dismissed
WEST PUBLISHING: N.Y. Court Dismisses Suit Over BAR/BRI Course


                         Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Casella Waste Reserves $366,000 for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Clause Extends to All Insurance Cos.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO to Hire Anderson Kill as Counsel
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Filing of Late Claims May Delay ASARCO Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Other Parties File Daubert Motions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Denies Grace's Rehearing Plea
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustees Want Tersigni Inquiry to Proceed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Grace Settlement w/ PD Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Settles w/ National Union, Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court Affirms Disallowance Order

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana to Assume Mt. McKinley, Century Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scapa Group Still Has Injury Suits in U.S.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filed on Laborer's Behalf v. 61 Firms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Favors N.Y. Over Intriago in Injury Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Consolidation of Foster Wheeler Suit Stayed

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Lawyer Gets 15-Year Jail Time for Fraud
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gordon-Smith Issued $100T Fine for Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO Says Asbestos Found in Toys & Products
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCATT Welcomes Commitment to Address Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Says SDG&E Workers Deserve New Trial

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Bank Could Face More Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contact Energy Mulls Closure of N.Z. Plant
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pensioner Files Lawsuit v. Wrexham Council
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Engineer's Kin Gets Wins GBP60T Payout Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: “Ban Asbestos Act” Faces More Oppositions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: R.I. Widow Sues 51 Defendants in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Connelley Action Filed in W.Va. v. 65 Firms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Class Action v. 105 Firms Brought in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fears Over Dust from Trucks' Tires Spread
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Builder Admits to Improper Hazard Disposal

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Linked to U.K. Pensioner's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Loses Appeal of Ruling in Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid to Remove Asbestos From Bldg. Affirmed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Family May Lose Payout in Postcode Lottery
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 58 Miners Worked in Minnesota's Iron Range

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Court Upholds Ruling in Dahlke Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Satisfies All Chapter 11 Requirements
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Elliott Summary Judgment Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Utica Lawsuit
ASBESTOS ALERT: Panolam Ind. Unit Records 299 Claims at Sept. 30


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Squitieri & Fearon Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********  


180 CONNECT: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuits in Three States
----------------------------------------------------------------
180 Connect, Inc., and its subsidiaries Ironwood Communications,
Inc., and Mountain Center, Inc. faces three class actions in
federal court in Washington, California and Oregon that were
brought by current and former employees.

The suits are alleging violations of state wage and hour laws
and a class action alleging violations of state paycheck laws in
federal court in California, according to the company's Nov. 14,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

180 Connect, Inc. -- http://www.180connect.net-- is one of   
North America's largest provider of installation, integration
and fulfillment services to home entertainment and
communications, enterprise data and home integration service
industries.  The Group provides these services in the U.S.  It
employs technicians in each of its 82 locations to ensure the
timely completion of its services.


180 CONNECT: Employees File FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
180 Connect, Inc. faces a suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The suit was filed on September 2007.  Its purported class
action period relates back to September 2004 and seeks to
certify a nationwide class of similarly situated employees.

The suit is “Craig v. 180 Connect Inc., Case No.  6:07-cv-01522-
GAP-DAB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge Gregory A. Presnell with
referral to Judge David A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          20 N. Orange Ave. - Ste. 1600, PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Phone: 407/420-1414
          Fax: 407/420-5956
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Carlos J. Burruezo, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson, PC
          4767 New Broad St.
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Phone: 407/514-2637
          Fax: 407/514-2638
          E-mail: cburruezo@littler.com


ABX AIR: Seeks Dismissal of RICO Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABX Air, Inc., a subsidiary of DHL Express, is seeking for a
dismissal of a purported class action filed against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

The suit, filed on April 13, 2007, named as defendants:

     -- ABX Air, Inc.;

     -- DHL Holdings (USA), Inc.;

     -- Joe C. Hete, president and chief executive of ABX;

     -- Gene Rhodes, vice-president for human resources of ABX;

     -- Douglas Steele, human resources manager for ABX;

     -- Garcia Labor Co. of Ohio Inc., temporary labor provider;

     -- Garcia Labor Co. Inc. of Tenn., temporary labor
        provider;

     -- Maximino Garcia, president and owner of Garcia Labor;

     -- Gina Luciano, director of human resources of Garcia
        Labor;

     -- Dominga McCarroll, vice-president of Garcia Labor;

The complaint alleges ABX conspired to employ more than 1,000
undocumented immigrants in a scheme.  This scheme was executed
between approximately December 1999 and January 2005 and has
directly and proximately caused the wages paid to named
plaintiff and the class to be substantially depressed, i.e.,
below the level of wages ABX and DHL would have paid its lawful
workers if they had not engaged in the scheme to hire
unauthorized aliens (Class Action Reporter,May 29, 2007).

Lead plaintiff ABX employee, Ronnie Hager claims ABX conspired
with co-defendant Garcia Labor Co., of Morristown, Tenn., to
recruit illegal workers and depress U.S. citizens’ wages.

Plaintiff files the suit as a purported class action, on behalf
of himself and all hourly employees of ABX and DHL at their
Wilmington, Ohio facility, authorized for employment in the U.S.
from December 1999 to the present, to recover damages and other
appropriate relief from the defendants for violations of the
RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961 et al.

The class claims top officers of all the corporations knowingly
hired illegal workers to sort freight at Wilmington.  They claim
the conspiracy lasted from December 1999 until January 2005, and
that Garcia provided rental housing in Wilmington for the
illegal workers it provided.

Further, they claim ABX kept hundreds of illegal workers on
staff after the Social Security Administration told it twice
that the workers were using fraudulent documents.

Several corporate officers have been sentenced to prison after
the Transportation Security Agency found that virtually all the
400 workers provided by Garcia were illegal, the complaint
states.

Questions of law that the purported class raise, include:

     (a) whether ABX has engaged in an illegal immigrant hiring
         scheme;

     (b) whether DHL has engaged in an illegal immigrant hiring
         scheme;

     (c) whether Garcia Labor Co. of Ohio, Inc. and Garcia Labor
         Co., Inc., have engaged in an illegal immigration
         hiring scheme;

     (d) whether the individual defendants have conspired to
         perpetuate the illegal immigrant hiring scheme;

     (e) whether ABX and the individual defendants have engaged
         in this scheme to depress the lawful employees' wages;

     (f) whether DHL and the individual defendants have engaged
         in this scheme to depress the lawful employees' wages;

     (g) whether Garcia Labor and the individual defendants have
         engaged in this scheme to depress the lawful employees'
         wages;

     (h) whether the illegal hiring scheme has caused the class
         members' wages to be depressed;

     (i) whether the illegal immigrant hiring scheme violates
         RICO and the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
         Section 1324; and

     (j) whether ABX, DHL and Garcia Labor should be enjoined
         from conducting further racketeering activity and
         whether the individual defendants should be bared from
         further association with ABX and DHL.

Plaintiff prays that the court enter a judgment:

     -- awarding damages in an amount equal to three times the
        damage caused the putative class by defendants'
        racketeering activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1964(c);

     -- awarding pre- and post-trial interest;

     -- awarding reasonable attorney fees and court costs
        incurred in the prosecution of this action, including
        all expert witness fees and other litigation expenses;

     -- declaring this action to be a class action properly
        maintained pursuant to Civ. R. 23 and certifying the
        named plaintiff as class representative and his counsel
        as class counsel; and

     -- awarding any other relief to which plaintiff may be
        entitled in law or equity that the court considers to be
        appropriate under the circumstances.

ABX has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is
currently pending, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d49

The suit is “Hager v. ABX Air, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00317-JDH-MRA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge John D. Holschuh with
referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Douglas Carter Knisley, Esq.
         Knisely Wilhelm & Knisely
         1395 Dublin Road
         Columbus, OH 43215-1046
         Phone: 614-486-9503
         E-mail: doug@knisleylaw.com

              - and –

         John T. Murray, Esq.
         Murray & Murray
         111 E. Shoreline Drive
         P.O. Box 19
         Sandusky, OH 44871-0019
         Phone: 419-624-3000
         Fax: 419 624 0707
         E-mail: jotm@murrayandmurray.com


ACTIVISION INC: Faces Fraud Suit Over Guitar Hero III Video Game  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Activision, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI) is facing a class action that
claims the company deceives consumers by falsely advertising
that its game, "Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock," for Nintendo
Wii, supports Dolby Pro Logic II surround sound.  The suit says
the game doesn't support Dolby, or even simple stereo sound on
the Wii, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This consumer class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  It arises from
defendant's engaging in deceptive and unlawful conduct in
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling a
defectively designed music video game for the Nintendo Wii game
console.

The complaint claims Activision has known this since October but
still sells the game under misrepresentations.

Named plaintiff Samuel Livingston brings this action pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, on behalf of all persons or entities residing in the
United States who purchased a Guitar Hero III video game for the
Wii which was advertised, labeled or marketed as supporting
stereo and/or Dolby PRo Logic 2 sound options.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the Guitar Hero II video game for the Wii fails
         to conform to Activision's advertised product
         specifications;

     (b) whether the Guitar Hero III video game for the Wii
         actually supports or complies with the Dolby pro Logic
         2 specifications and can properly output audio content
         to a Dolby Pro Logic 2 capable receiver;

     (c) whether defendant knew or should have known that the
         Guitar Hero III video game for the Wii does not
         actually support or comply with Dolby Pro Logic 2
         specifications;

     (d) whether defendant made false and/or misleading
         statements of fact to the class and the public
         concerning the capabilities of Guitar Hero III video
         game;

     (e) whether defendant's false and/or misleading statements
         of fact to the class and the public about the
         capabilities of the Guitar Hero III video game for the
         Wii, and the concealment of material facts, were likely
         to deceive the public;

     (f) whether defendant knowingly concealed the defective
         design of the Guitar Hero III video game for the Wii
         with respect to Dolby Pro Logic 2 or stereo
         capabilities;

     (g) whether defendant refused to recall the defectively
         designed Guitar Hero III video game for the Wii in
         order to increase sales of new video game;

     (h) whether defendant misrepresented the capabilities of
         the Guitar hero III video game for the Wii;

     (i) whether defendant made representations that the Guitar
         Hero III video game for the Wii was of a particular
         standard or quality, which it did not have;

     (j) whether defendant made representations that the Guitar
         Hero III video game for the Wii had characteristics,
         uses, benefits, or qualities which it did not have;

     (k) whether, by its conduct, defendant has engaged in
         unfair or unlawful business practices with respect to
         the advertising, marketing, and sale of the Guitar Hero
         III video game for the Wii;

     (l) whether, by its conduct, defendant has engaged in
         unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising of
         the Guitar Hero III video game for the Wii;

     (m) whether defendant violated consumer protection statutes
         and/or false advertising statutes and/or state
         deceptive business practices statutes; and

     (n) the nature and extent of damages and other remedies to
         which the conduct of defendant entitles the class  
         members.

Plaintiff request that the court enter an order or judgment
against defendant including the following:

      -- certification of the action as a class action pursuant
         to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
         Procedure with respect to plaintiff's claims for
         injunctive relief, rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
         of Civil Procedure with respect to the claims for
         damages, and appointment of plaintiff as class
         representative and his counsel of record as class
         counsel;

      -- damages in the amount of monies paid for Guitar Hero
         III games for Wii;

      -- actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble
         damages, and such other relief as provided by the
         statutes cited;

      -- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest according
         to proof;

      -- equitable relief in the form of restitution and/or
         disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits
         received by defendant as a result of the unfair,
         unlawful or illegal profits received by defendant as a
         result of the unfair, unlawful and/or deceptive conduct
         alleged;

      -- other appropriate injunctive relief;

      -- the costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable
         attorneys' fees; and

      -- all other relief to which plaintiff and members of the
         proposed class may be entitled at law or in equity.

The suit is "Samuel Livingston et al. v. Activision, Inc., Case
No. CVO7-08057," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alan Himmelfarb
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          2757 Leonis Blvd.
          Vernon, California 90058-2304
          Phone: (323) 585-8696
          E-mail: ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com

          Scott A. Kamber
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 920-3072
          Fax: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kamberedelson.com

          - and -

          Jay Edelson
          Ethan Preston
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1530
          Chicago, Illinois 60604
          Phone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: epreston@kamberedelson.com or
                  jedelson@kamberedelson.com


ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Dismissed from U.S. SRAM Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Semiconductor Corp. was dismissed without prejudice as
a defendant in several U.S. antitrust class actions filed with
regards to static random access memory (SRAM).

In October and November 2006, the company and other companies in
the semiconductor industry were named as defendants in a number
of purported antitrust class actions filed in federal district
courts in California and other states.  The company has been
served in some but not all of these actions.

The lawsuits purport to state claims on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of SRAM products of a conspiracy between
manufacturers of SRAM chips to fix or control the price of SRAM
during the period Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2005.

Based on an agreement to preserve evidence and toll the statute
of limitations until Jan. 10, 2009, the plaintiffs in the U.S.
litigation voluntarily dismissed Alliance from the case without
prejudice, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Alliance Semiconductor Corp. -- http://www.alsc.com-- is a  
provider of analog and mixed-signal products, high-performance
memory products and connectivity and networking solutions for
the communications computing, embedded, industrial and consumer
markets.  It operated in two segments: Memory and Non-Memory.


AROTECH CORP: Consolidated Securities Complaint Filed in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities fraud class action pending against
Arotech Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York has filed a consolidated amended complaint
in September.

In May 2007, two purported class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against us and certain of our officers and directors.  These two
cases were consolidated in June 2007.

A similar case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan in March 2007 was withdrawn by the
plaintiff in June 2007.

The complaint seeks class status on behalf of all persons who
purchased our securities between Nov. 9, 2004 and Nov. 14, 2005,
and alleges violations by us and certain of our officers and
directors of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, primarily related to the
company's acquisition of Armour of America in 2005 and certain
public statements made by with respect to its business and
prospects during the Period.

The Complaint also alleges that the company did not have
adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls,
and that our financial statements and reports were not prepared
in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules.  It seeks an unspecified
amount of damages.  

A lead plaintiff has been named, and the plaintiff’s
consolidated amended complaint was filed in September 2007.  The
company's motion to dismiss was due by the end of November 2007,
but a decision on the motion is not expected until mid-2008.

The suit is “Morris Akerman, et al. v. Arotech Corporation, et
al., Case No. 07-CV-01838,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York under Judge Raymond J. Dearie.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 310.209.2468
          Fax: 310.209.2087
          E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS: Still Faces Camellia Island Project Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P., its General Partner Arvida/JMB
Managers, Inc., and certain related and unrelated parties remain
defendants in a purported class action pending in the Circuit
Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida.

The suit is “Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case No.
03-10709 CACE 12.”  In this suit that was originally filed on or
about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs purport to bring a class action
allegedly arising out of construction defects occurring during
the development of Camellia Island in Weston, which has
approximately 150 homes.  

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine-count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may
deem just and proper.   

Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the homes were not
adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity
with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with
Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer
from improper shutter storm protection systems.  

The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint.

ALP Liquidating Trust, which engages in liquidating the assets
of Arvida/JMB Partners, reported no development in the case in
its Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.


ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS: Still Faces Fla. Suit Over Defective Homes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. remains a defendant in a purported
class action filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

The suit is "Osnovsky et al. v. Arvida Co., Arvida/JMB Partners,
and Arvida Realty Co., Inc., Case No. 05015925."  The Arvida
defendants were served on March 1, 2006.

Plaintiffs have filed a three count class action complaint for
alleged violations of state building code, failure to disclose
known defects in a residential real estate transaction, and
negligence, all in connection with injuries allegedly sustained
to their homes in the Ridges, a homeowners association in Weston
that has about 1,500 units.  

Plaintiffs complain of alleged roofing defects in their homes,
among other things.  They seek unspecified damages and the
opportunity to amend to add punitive damages.

ALP Liquidating Trust, which engages in liquidating the assets
of Arvida/JMB Partners, reported no development in the case in
its Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.


ASTEA INT'L: Pa. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
dismissed with prejudice a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against Astea International, Inc.

On and shortly after April 6, 2006, certain purported
shareholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the company and
certain of its directors and officers.

The lawsuits, alleging that the company and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws and
state laws, relate to the company's March 31, 2006 announcement
of the accounting restatement for overcapitalized software
development costs during the first two quarters of 2005 and
undercapitalized software development costs during the third
quarter of 2005.  

Pursuant to a stipulation and order of the court entered July
12, 2006, the putative class actions were consolidated, certain
persons were appointed as lead plaintiffs, and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed on Sept. 11, 2006.

On Aug. 9, 2007, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, without prejudice, and granted plaintiffs leave to
file an amended Consolidated Amended Complaint.  

The plaintiffs did not file an Amended Complaint, and instead
agreed to a joint stipulation for dismissal provided Astea did
not seek a recovery of costs against the plaintiffs.  

On Aug. 21, 2007, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended
Complaint with prejudice, according to the company's Nov. 14,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Shanahan v. Astea International Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-01467-WY,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge William H. Yohn,
Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David Felderman
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-496-0300
          E-mail: dfelderman@srk-law.com

          Andrew N. Friedman
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, and Toll
          1100 New York Avenue
          N.W., West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005-3964
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

          - and -

          Michael D. Gottsch
          Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: 610-642-8500
          E-mail: michaelgottsch@chimicles.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert L. Hickok
          Pepper Hamilton, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Sq., 18TH & Arch Sts.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Phone: 215-981-4583
          E-mail: hickokr@pepperlaw.com


AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY: Cal. Wins Favorable Ruling in Air Law Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California ruled in favor of the state of
California and environmental groups Environmental Defense,
Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club in a case
brought by the automobile industry seeking to strike down the
state's greenhouse gas law.

This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief by
Central VAlley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. et al. and Plaintiff-
intervenors Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers against defendant James Goldstone, in his official
capacity as Executive Director of the California Air Resources
Control Board and defendant-intervenors Sierra Club, et al.

Plaintiffs filed this action on December 7, 2004.

The first amended complaint alleged five claims for relief;
preemption under Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA),
preemption under section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act, preemption
under United States foreign policy, violation of the Dormant
Commerce Clause, and violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The federal Clean Air Act allows California to set stricter
emissions rules for automobiles than the federal government.
California exercised this authority by enacting AB 1493 and the
automobile industry challenged the rules issued under AB 1493 by
filing the lawsuit.

The judge issued a 57 page decision in “Central Valley Chrysler-
Jeep, Inc. v. Goldstone,” ruling that the federal law
establishing automobile fuel economy standards (EPCA) does not
prevent California from adopting and enforcing a greenhouse gas
emissions reduction law. In so doing he revised a prior ruling
in the case, stating that a recent Supreme Court decision on
global warming required him now to hold that the Department of
Transportation must conform federal fuel economy standards to be
consistent with greenhouse gas pollution standards adopted
either by the U.S. EPA or by California.

Judge Ishii's opinion states “Given the level of impairment of
human health and welfare that current climate science indicates
may occur if human-generated greenhouse gas emissions continue
unabated, it would be the very definition of folly if EPA were
precluded from action simply because the level of decrease in
greenhouse gas output is incompatible with existing mileage
standards under EPCA.”

The suit is “Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. Goldstone,
Case No. CV F 04-6663 AWI LJO,” filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The three environmental groups were represented in the
California and Vermont cases by:

          Matt Pawa
          Law Offices of Matthew F. Pawa, P.C. - Boston
          Phone: 617 641-9550 (office) or 617 233-3773 (cell)


BRAVO! BRANDS: Vianale Expands Purpored Securities Class Period
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP filed a class action on
December 12, 2007, alleging an expanded class period, on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Bravo! Brands, Inc.
(PINKSHEETS: BRVO) between March 22, 2005 and May 15, 2007.

The complaint expands the prior Class Period and alleges that
Bravo's financial statements and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filings were false beginning at least as early as
March 22, 2005. It alleges that Bravo CEO Roy G. Warren and
Chief Accounting Officer Tommy E. Kee violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

During the Class Period, Bravo allegedly concealed that its sole
distributor, Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc., had drastically cut
its demand for Bravo's milk-drinks. (Bravo sold its products
under the brand names "Slammers" and "Bravo.") Bravo also failed
to timely disclose that it had defaulted on interest payments to
senior note holders. Bravo announced several restatements to its
financial.

Bravo falsely told investors on April 3, 2007, that it had
expanded its drink products by introducing the first milk-based
sports drink. Only one month later, Bravo announced that it
would substantially reduce its workforce, that it would not roll
out brands into new channels of distribution, and that its sales
with CCE had declined substantially in April and May 2007. On
May 15, 2007, the last day of the Class Period, Bravo announced
that it had recognized a $17.6 million non-cash impairment
charge during the quarter ended March 31, 2007. On September 21,
2007, Bravo filed for bankruptcy.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 17,
2007, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
          Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 888-657-9960 (Toll Free) or 561-392-4750


CARROLS CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Motion in Former Workers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has
yet to rule on certain motions made in a purported class action
against Carrols Corp., according to Carrols Restaurant Group,
Inc.’s Nov. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

On Nov. 30, 2002, four former hourly employees of the company
commenced a lawsuit, “Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp.”

The lawsuit alleges, in substance, that Carrols violated certain
minimum wage laws under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
related state laws by requiring employees to work without
recording their time and by retaliating against those who
complained.

Plaintiffs seek damages, costs and injunctive relief.  They also
seek to notify, and eventually certify, a class consisting of
current and former employees who, since 1998, have worked, or
are working, for Carrols.

As a result of the July 21, 2005 status conference, the parties
agreed to withdraw plaintiff's motions to certify and for
national discovery, and defendant's motion to disqualify counsel
and related motions, to allow both sides limited additional
discovery.

Carrols has since filed a motion for summary judgment as to the
existing plaintiffs that the court has under consideration.  

On Jan. 19, 2007, plaintiffs re-filed the Motion to certify and
for national discovery.  Carrols has opposed such Motions.

Carrols has also moved to disqualify the Plaintiffs from
representing the class and to strike the purported evidence
presented in support of the motion to certify.

The suit is “Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp., Case No.
6:02-cv-06580-DGL-MWP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York under Judge David G. Larimer with
referral to Judge Marian W. Payson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick J. Solomon, Esq.
         Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP
         693 East Avenue
         Rochester, NY 14607
         Phone: 585-272-0540
         Fax: 585-272-0574
         E-mail: psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com

Representing the defendants is:
        
         Helen N. Baker, Esq.
         Freeborn & Peters
         311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: 312-360-6256
         Fax: 312-360-6995
         E-mail: hbaker@freebornpeters.com


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Cal. Court Mulls Motion to Certify FACTA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking class-action status to a
consolidated class action, alleging violations of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

                         Blanco Litigation

On Jan. 23, 2007, a purported class action against the Company,
entitled, “Blanco v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et al., Cause No.
CV-07-0559,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  

The Blanco Litigation was filed by an alleged customer of one of
the Company’s Chuck E. Cheese’s restaurants purporting to
represent all individuals in the U.S. who, on or after Dec. 4,
2006, were knowingly and intentionally provided at the point of
sale or transaction with an electronically-printed receipt by
the Company that was in violation of U.S.C. Section 1681c(g) of
FACTA.

The Blanco Litigation is not seeking actual damages, but is only
seeking statutory damages for each willful violation under
FACTA.

                          Price Litigation

On Feb. 8, 2007, a purported class action against the Company,
entitled, “Price v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et al., Cause No.
CV-07-00923,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The Price Litigation was filed by an alleged customer of one of
the Company’s Chuck E. Cheese’s restaurants purporting to
represent the following two classes of individuals in the U.S.:

      -- all persons to whom, on or after Jan. 1, 2005, the
         Company provided, through use of a machine that was
         first put into use by the Company on or after Jan. 1,
         2005, an electronically printed receipt which was in
         violation of U.S.C. Section 1681c(g) of FACTA; and

      -- all persons to whom, on or after Dec. 4, 2006, the
         Company provided, through use of a machine that was
         being used by the Company before Jan. 1, 2005, an
         electronically printed receipt which was in violation
         of FACTA.

The Price Litigation was not seeking actual damages, but was
only seeking statutory damages for each willful violation under
FACTA and a permanent injunction enjoining the Company from
engaging in unlawful violations of FACTA.

The Price Litigation was consolidated into the Blanco Litigation
while it was still in its preliminary stages and before
discovery had begun.

The post-consolidation Blanco Litigation is still in its
preliminary stages and discovery has not yet been completed.
Both parties have served and answered written discovery.

Also, CEC deposed Plaintiff Blanco on Aug. 5, 2007.  Plaintiff
Blanco’s attorneys, however, have not deposed any CEC
representatives.  

On Oct. 1, 2007, Plaintiff Blanco filed her Motion for Class
Certification.  CEC is currently preparing its response thereto.

Accordingly, the Court has not yet ruled on whether Plaintiff
Blanco’s proposed class should be certified.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com-- is  
engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business.
The Company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's
restaurants.  In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of
the Company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants.  Chuck E.
Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar,
sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and
comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family
oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities.  The Company
and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five
foreign countries/territories.


DELTA FINANCIAL: Denied Appeal of Labor Suit Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Financial Corp., owner of Fidelity Mortgage Inc., was
barred from filing an interlocutory appeal on the order issued
March by the Honorable Gary L. Lancaster of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
Bankruptcy Law360 reports.

Judge Lancaster's previous order had partly granted and denied
requests for summary judgment by both Fidelity and Doug Pontius,
plaintiff, the report relates.  The order, according to the
report, was based on Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan's
recommendation to deny Fidelity's request because the Supreme
and Circuit Courts and the Department of Labor do not consider
companies in the financial sector as part of an exemption in the
retail or service enterprise.

                          FLSA Violation Suit

In November 2004, the company received notice that it has been
named in a lawsuit styled as a collective action filed in the
Western District of Pennsylvania.  The suit alleges that the
company's  subsidiary, Fidelity Mortgage, now a division of the
company's other subsidiary, Delta Funding Corporation, did not
pay its loan officers overtime compensation and minimum wage in
violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint seeks:

  (1) an amount equal to the unpaid wages at the applicable
      overtime rate;

  (2) an amount equal to the minimum wages at the applicable
      minimum wage;

  (3) an equal amount as liquidated damages;

  (4) costs and attorneys' fees;

  (5) leave to add additional plaintiffs; and

  (6) leave to amend to add claims under applicable state laws.

The company filed an answer and discovery has commenced.

In April 2005, the plaintiff filed his motion for conditional
class certification and in May 2005, Fidelity filed its
opposition to that motion.

In June 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommended that the plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification be granted and that plaintiff's motion to
authorize judicial notice be granted.

In July 2005, Fidelity filed with the District Court its
objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and the
plaintiff filed its opposition to the objections.

In July 2005, the District Court upheld the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation.  Any potential class members who
desired to join the collective action were provided an
opportunity to do so during an "opt-in" period that ended in
October 2005.  Approximately 180 individuals, virtually all of
whom are former employees, are plaintiffs in the collective
action.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment.

By agreement in June 2006, the Court stayed the action while the
parties engaged in non-binding mediation, and plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment was withdrawn without prejudice to it being
re-filed.  The matter was not resolved through mediation, the
stay was lifted in August 2006, the plaintiffs' motion was re-
filed and the company filed its opposition to the motion and a
cross-motion for partial summary judgment.  In September 2006,
the plaintiffs filed their papers in response to the company's
opposition to their motion and replied to the company's cross-
motion.

In October 2006, the company filed reply papers to the
plaintiffs' opposition to the company's cross-motion.

In March 2007, the Magistrate Judge rendered a report and
recommendation that the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
be granted, and the company's motion denied, as to the company's
entitlement to a retail or service establishment exemption under
the FLSA; that plaintiffs' motion be denied as to:

     (a) the company's entitlement to an administrative
         employee exemption under the FLSA; and
  
     (b) plaintiffs' entitlement to liquidated damages; and the
         company's motion be granted as to the sufficiency of
         the employees' compensation under the salary basis
         test, but denied as to the remaining two conditions of
         an administrative employee exemption.

In April 2007, the company filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation, since it did not recommend
the granting of the company's cross-motion for partial summary
judgment, and the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
company's objections.

In May 2007, the company filed a reply to the plaintiffs'
opposition to the company's objections, on which the District
Court issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation in May 2007.

In July 2007, the company filed a motion for certification of an
interlocutory appeal from the District Court's May 2007 order
and the plaintiffs filed their opposition papers in July 2007;
and the company filed a reply papers in August 2007.

                      About Delta Financial

Founded in 1982, Delta Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: DFC) --
http://www.deltafinancial.com/-- is a Woodbury, New York-based
specialty consumer finance company that originates, securitizes
and sells non-conforming mortgage loans.  On Dec. 7, 2007,
Delta Financial Corporation provided an update on Dec. 6, 2007,
of its financial condition and current plans, including a
possible filing of chapter 11 bankruptcy and an event of default
under its warehouse facilities.


DOMTAR INC: Settles Carbonless Sheets Price Fixing Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Domtar Inc. settled two purported class actions in Canada over
alleged damages relating to a conspiracy to fix prices of
carbonless sheets, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

                       Quebec Litigation

Domtar Inc. is the subject to a motion by Joachim Laferriere
Electricien Inc., filed in the Quebec Superior Court on January
9, 2006, for authorization to bring a class action against
Domtar Inc. and others for alleged damages relating to a
conspiracy to fix prices of carbonless sheets during the period
of January through December 2000 in the Province of Quebec,
Canada.

The claim seeks estimated compensatory damages in the amount of
$50 million (CAN$50 million) plus estimated exemplary damages in
the amount of $1 million to $5 million (CAN$1 million to CAN$5
million).

                       Ontario Litigation

Domtar is also subject to a motion by McLay & Company Inc. filed
in Ontario Superior Court on January 11, 2006 for authorization
to bring a class action against Domtar Inc. and others, for
alleged inflated prices of carbonless sheets paper during the
period of October 1999 through September 2000 in the Province of
Ontario, Canada.

These class actions have been settled in principle for an
insignificant amount and are subject to Court approval.  

Domtar Corp. -- http://www.domtar.com-- formerly Weyerhaeuser  
TIA, Inc., is an integrated producer of uncoated freesheet paper
and manufacturer of papergrade market pulp in North America.


FAR EAST BROKERS: Recalls Fishing Games for Lead Standard Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Far East Brokers and Consultants Inc., of Jacksonville, Fla., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 14,000 Fishing Games.

The company said the recalled game has parts that contain
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Fishing Game contains a fishing pole, one large
battery operated fish, and three small wind-up fish. The UPC
#011546208270 and product #25741 are printed on the product's
packaging.

These recalled fishing games were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Grand Union Family Markets, Southern Family
Markets, P&C Stores, Publix Super Markets, and Food Lion stores
nationwide from October 2007 through November 2007 for about
$10.

Picture of recalled fishing games:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08130.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the product away from
children and return it to the store where purchased for a full
refund.

For additional information, contact Far East Brokers and
Consultants toll-free at (877) 695-8354 between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.fareastbrokers.com/


FLAT GLASS MAKERS: Face Suit in Penn. for Alleged Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guardian Industries Corp., which controls 8 percent of the U.S.
market for flat glass, is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, accusing it of leading an antitrust conspiracy to
fix prices for flat glass, particularly automotive glass, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Other named defendants:

          -- Guardian Fabrication Inc.,
          -- Lake Guardian Walled Fabrication Corp.,
          -- Guardian Glass Company,
          -- Pilkington Group Limited,
          -- Pilkington PLC,
          -- Pilkington North America Inc.,
          -- Pilkington Holdings Inc.,
          -- Libbey-Owens-Ford Co.,
          -- NSG UK Enterprises Limited,
          -- Nippon Sheet Glass Co. Limited,
          -- Compagnie de Saint-Gobain,
          -- Saint-Gobain Corporation,
          -- Certainteed Corporation,
          -- Saint-Gobain Glass Corporation,
          -- Saint-Gobain Glass Exprover North America
             Corporation,
          -- Asahi Glass Company Limited,
          -- AGC Flat Glass,
          -- AGC Flat Glass North America,
          -- AGC Flat Glass Europe,
          -- AGC America Inc.,
          -- AGC Interedge Technologies Inc., and
          -- AMA Glass Corporation

Named plaintiff John Draper d/b/a Draper's Auto Glass brings
this action under the federal antitrust laws, Section 1 of the
Sherman Antritust Act of 1890, 15 USC Section 1, and Section 4
of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. Section 15.

This case arises from an international cartel among the world's
leading manufacturers of flat glass to fix, raise, maintain,
and/or stabilize prices of flat glass in the worldwide flat
glass market, including in the the United States.

Flat glass includes all unfabricated and fabricated glass
products manufactured through the "float process," whether
transparent, opaque, translucent, reinforced or otherwise,
formed in a flat shape, used for cutting into window panes, or
glass formed flat and subsequently bent or curved, used for
fabrication into automobile windshields.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased flat glass in the United States directly
from the defendants or their co-conspirators, at any time from
at least Jan. 1, 2004 to Dec. 31, 2005, the exact date being
unknown.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants conspired, contracted or combined
         with others, for the purpose of and with the effect of
         raising, fixing, maintaining, pegging, or stabilizing
         the price of flat glass which was purchased by the
         class;

     (b) whether defendants undertook actions to conceal the
         unlawful conspiracies, contracts or combinations
         described; and

     (c) whether defendants' conduct violated the relevant
         federal antitrust laws and caused injury to the
         business and property of plaintiff and the class and,
         if so, the proper measure of damages.

Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

     -- that the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class action under Rules 23(b)(2) and
        (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that
        plaintiff be appointed as a class representative and
        that plaintiff's counsel be appointed as counsel for
        the class;

     -- that the unlawful contract, combination and conspiracy
        alleged in Count I be adjudged and decreed to be an
        unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce in violation
        of Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     -- that plaintiff and the class recover compensatory
        damages, as provided by law, determined to have been
        sustained as to each of them, and that judgment be
        entered against defendants on behalf of plaintiff and
        each and every member of the class;

     -- that plaintiff and the class recover treble damages, as
        provided by law;

     -- that plaintiff and the class recover their costs of the
        suit, including attorney's fees, as provided by law;

     -- that defendants be enjoined from engaging in the
        anticompetitive and unlawful acts described;

     -- such further relief as the court may deem just and
        proper.

The suit is "John Draper et al. v. Guardian Industries Corp., et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Nicholas E. Chimicles
          Joseph G. Saudler
          Daniel B. Scott
          Benjamin F. Johns
          Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: (610) 642-8500
          Fax: (610) 649-3633

          Bernard Persky
          Hollis L. Salzman
          Kellie Lerner
          Rebecca Cohen
          Morissa Falk
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Boradway
          New York, NY 1005
          Phone: (212) 907-0700
          Fax: (212) 818-0477

          - and -

          Michael Goldberg
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Fax: (310) 201-9160


ILLINOIS: Tazewell Sheriff Sued for Denying Services to Inmate
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal inmate filed a suit against Tazewell County Sheriff
Bob Huston in October claiming a host of deprivation, it emerged
in a report by Kevin Sampier of Peoria Journal Star.

Anthony L. Fletcher claimed Sheriff Huston denied him and other
inmates dental care, access to exercise equipment, mental health
treatment, law books and legal materials, and charged too much
for haircuts and snacks at the commissary, according to the
report.

The suit came before a judge in November.  It was mentioned in
Mr. Sampier's report about a suit Mr. Fletcher filed against
Tazewell County jailer Richard Brock for alleged harassment.  
Mr. Fletcher is representing himself in both cases.

Mr. Fletcher is awaiting trial after being indicted in March by
a federal grand jury on charges of possession and production of
child pornography, according to the report.  He is being housed
in Tazewell County for the federal government.

He was convicted last year in McLean County for aggravated
criminal sexual abuse and possessing child porn, receiving a 29-
year sentence in July, according to the report.  

Tazewell County State's Attorney Stewart Umholtz filed a motion
earlier this month asking that the suit against Sheriff Huston
be dismissed for several reasons, including failure by Mr.
Fletcher to file proper notices to the sheriff.  

Mr. Fletcher has filed dozens of motions in his federal case
that allege constitutional violations by attorneys, court
reporters and jailers in other areas.  Some have been dismissed,
according to the report.

Both cases were postponed Friday until a later date.


IRONWOOD COMMS: Faces Wage, Hour Laws Violations Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ironwood Communications, Inc., a subsidiary of 180 Connect,
Inc., faces a purported class action in state court in Los
Angeles, California, brought by current and former employees.

The suit was filed on October 2007.  Its claims relate to
alleged violations of California wage and hour laws.  

The purported class action period allegedly relates back to
October 2003, although the class period may be limited to after
June 30, 2004 by virtue of settlement of previous wage and hour
class action litigation in California.

180 Connect, Inc. -- http://www.180connect.net-- is one of   
North America's largest provider of installation, integration
and fulfillment services to home entertainment and
communications, enterprise data and home integration service
industries.  The Group provides these services in the U.S.  It
employs technicians in each of its 82 locations to ensure the
timely completion of its services.


KMART: Recalls Pants with Drawstring Posing Entrapment Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kmart, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 13,000 basic editions-brand
girls' clothing sets imported by Millennium Apparel Group, of
New York, N.Y.

The company said the recalled pants have a drawstring at the
waist that can pose an entrapment or entanglement hazard to
children.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recalled two-piece clothing set has olive-colored knit
pants with a fully-tunneled waist drawstring and a pink short-
sleeved top with necktie. The set was sold in the following
girls' sizes: 4/5, 6/6X, 7/8, and 10/12.

The clothing were made in Pakistan and sold in Kmart stores
nationwide during July 2007 for about $17 per set.

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings to
eliminate the hazard.

For additional information, contact Kmart at (800)
659-7026 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday,
or visit http://www.kmart.com

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the
recalled product, please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08117.html


LONGWOOD MANAGEMENT: Nursing Home Workers to Recoup $4M in Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nursing home workers from 32 facilities across Southern
California won a $4 million judgment, after settling a class
action filed against their employer, Longwood Management Corp.

Forced to work through meal periods and breaks without
compensation, the hourly employees sued Longwood in 2003 for
wage and hour law violations.  

The settlement is a huge win for nursing home employees and
patients alike, making it clear to administrators that they will
not get away with exploiting workers, and they must make proper
staffing levels a priority in their homes to ensure quality
patient care.

The judgment also means renewed confidence and dignity for
employees who fear losing their job if they speak up when
administrators violate the law.

SEIU Healthcare – United Long-Term Care Workers’ Union
represents about 400 employees in four of the Longwood
facilities. Enriqueta Hernarndez , a union member and CNA at
Montrose Healthcare, called the judgment “monumental.”

“I am happy because this proves the law is working for us,” Ms.
Hernandez said. Hernandez has been working at the Longwood
facility since before the suit began and will receive the
maximum payout from the settlement. “These problems have been
going on for a long time, but I know that if we join together
and fight we can win.”

“If I wasn’t for the courage and perseverance of the plaintiffs
who stepped forward we never would have got what we deserved,”
said Dori Camacho, a CNA at Intercommunity Healthcare and
Rehabilitation Center. “It just shows that if we stick together,
we can get fair treatment and justice.”


MID-CENTURY INSURANCE: Allowed to Directly Collect Authority Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Supreme Court overturned a ruling that declared as
illegal the manner by which Mid-Century Insurance Co. collects
Authority fees from motorists, Rob Luke of Legal News Line
reports.

Shefqet Ademaj and others brought a class action against Mid-
Century Insurance Company of Texas and Texas Farmers Insurance
Company seeking a declaratory judgment on the manner in which
Mid-Century could lawfully recoup the legislatively imposed
Authority fee from insureds.

The Department of Insurance (DoI) has allowed Mid-Century to
directly charge motorists an Authority fee.  Later, Ademaj
argued successfully at trial and on appeal that Mid-Century
collected the fee illegally because it was not included in the
company's rate filing with DoI commissioner.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, Justice Paul W. Green wrote for
the majority, "Because the commissioner made a reasonable
determination that the Authority fee should be charged directly
and not as part of the Article 5.101 premium, we hold that Mid-
Century properly recouped the fee from Ademaj."

The suit is "Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. Shefqet Ademaj
(docket# 05-0016)."


NATIONAL BEEF: 8th Circuit Mulls “Schumacher” Defendants' Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal for favorable ruling by defendants in the purported
class action, “Schumacher v. Tyson Foods, et al.”

On July 1, 2002, a lawsuit was filed against:

     -- Farmland National Beef Packing Co., L.P. (FNBPC or the
        predecessor to National Beef Packing Co., LLC (NBP)),

     -- ConAgra Beef Co.,

     -- Tyson Foods, Inc., and

     -- Excel Corp.

It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Dakota, seeking certification of a class of all persons
who sold cattle to the defendants for cash, or on a basis
affected by the cash price for cattle, during the period from
April 2, 2001 through May 11, 2001 and for some period up to two
weeks thereafter.

Three named plaintiffs on behalf of a putative nationwide class
filed the case.  

The complaint alleged that the defendants, in violation of the
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, knowingly used, without
correction or disclosure, incorrect and misleading boxed beef
price information generated by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to purchase cattle offered for sale by the
plaintiffs at a price substantially lower than was justified by
the actual and correct price of boxed beef during this period.

Plaintiffs also sought recovery against all defendants under a
theory of unjust enrichment.   

The case was certified as a class-action matter in June of 2004.
The plaintiffs claimed damages against FNBPC in the amount of
approximately $4.5 million plus prejudgment interest, attorneys'
fees and court costs.  The claim is subject to reduction in an
unknown amount by the number of class members who have opted out
of the class.  

Trial began March 31, 2006.  On April 13, 2006, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of FNBPC but not against the other
defendants.  

The defendants found liable filed post-trial motions for
judgment as a matter of law, which were denied.  The plaintiffs
did not file a post-trial motion seeking to set aside the jury's
verdict for FNBPC.  

The court has not yet entered a final judgment or appealable
order and, until it does, the time for an appeal does not begin
to run.

On April 13, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of FNBPC
but against the other defendants.  The other defendants have
filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.

according to its Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 25, 2007.

according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended April 26, 2007.
The suit is “Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-01027-CBK,” filed in the U.S. District Court of South
Dakota under Judge Charles B. Kornmann.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Elizabeth J. Anderson, Esq.
         David F. Herr, Esq.
         Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand
         3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. 7th St.
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
         Phone: (612) 672-8200
         Fax: (612) 672-8397

Representing the defendants are:

         William H. Baumgartner, Jr., Esq.
         Sidley Austin LLP
         One South Dearborn Street
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 853-7000
         Fax: (312) 853-7036
         E-mail: wbaumgartner@sidley.com

              - and -

         Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq.
         McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO
         1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700, First Natl. Tower
         Omaha, NE 68102-1627
         Phone: (402) 341-3070
         Fax: (402) 341-0216


NBC UNIVERSAL: "Lucky X" Game Illegal, Calif. Lawsuit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
NBC Universal, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
Dec. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, claiming its "Lucky X" game on its show, "America's
Got Talent," is illegal gambling, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiffs Michael Glass and David Mathews claim
defendants engage in illegal gambling activity through their
operation of the "Lucky X" game offered in connection with the
NBC television show "America's Got Talent. Lucky X involves the
three elements of illegal gambling: consideration, chance and
prize, the suit claims.

Plaintiffs bring this nationwide class action, pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all
persons in the United States who paid or incurred premium text
message charges in connection with entrance into Lucky X, and
who did not win a prize.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Lucky X constitutes illegal gambling;

     (b) the extent of each defendant's participation in
         conducting the game;

     (c) whether defendants' conduct violates California
         Business and Professions Code Section 17200;

     (d) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
         recover the premium text messaging fees paid to enter
         Lucky X;

     (e) the extent to which plaintiffs and the class are
         entitled to damages, restitution, or other monetary
         remedies, as result of the injuries suffered; and

     (f) whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing
         to promote and conduct Lucky X.

Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment as follows:

     -- for an order certifying the class;

     -- for judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the class for
        restitution;

     -- for preliminary and permanent injunctions against
        conducting Lucky X and any other equitable remedies that
        may protect the class;

     -- for a declaration that Lucky X constitutes illegal
        gambling;

     -- for imposition of a constructive trust on defendants for
        the benefit of plaintiffs and the class;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to class
        counsel as may be just and proper; and

     -- for such other and further relief as may be just and  
        proper.

The suit is "Michael Glass et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., Case
No. CV07-08044," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jeff S. Westerman
          Sabrina S. Kim
          Michiyo Michelle Furukawa
          Milberg Weiss LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 617-1200
          Fax: (213) 617-1975
          E-mail: jwesterman@milbergweiss.com or
                  skim@milbergweiss.com or
                  mfurukawa@milbergweiss.com

          Michael C. Spencer
          Milberg Weiss LLP
          One Pennsulvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          Fax: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: mspencer@milbergweiss.com

          Paul R. Kiesel
          Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 854-4444
          Fax: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

          - and -

          William A. Pannell
          William A. Pannell, P.C.
          3460 Kingsboro Road, N.E., Suite TH5
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: (404) 353-2283
          E-mail: billpannell@mindspring.com


OHIO: Settlement Reached in Voyeurism Suit Against Dead Landlord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harry J. Sargeant, Jr. granted preliminary approval to a
settlement of a case involving a deceased Gibsonburg, Ohio
landlord accused of illegally taking videos of his tenants, The
(Toledo, OH) Blade reports.

Last year, a motion for summary judgment in a case of deceased  
James Rogers was filed in Sandusky County Common Pleas Court
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2006).  Samuel Bolotin, a
Toledo attorney representing several of the plaintiffs in the
case, said the motion is essentially asking the court to rule
that Mr. Rogers' estate is liable in the case, according to the
report.

The motion argues that plaintiffs' privacy was violated by the  
defendant's act.  It stated that the accused installed  
surveillance equipment in a property he owned at 114 and 118 W.  
Madison St., and at two apartments at 401 E. Stevenson St.   

The taping "breached the covenants of quiet enjoyment that were  
implied into the leases entered into between James Rogers and  
each plaintiff," according to the motion.

The documents allege Mr. Rogers was taping people using those  
properties as early as May 1993.  Mr. Rogers shot himself when  
police investigated his properties in early 2002.   

According to the motion, Gibsonburg police confiscated 237  
videotapes and 83 pieces of electronic surveillance equipment  
after the search.

Mr. Bolotin then said that the motion is not asking the court to  
determine any monetary damages at this stage.

Recently, attorneys reportedly announced a proposed deal that
would involve a $100,000 payout to the plaintiffs, along with
payouts of at least $100 to others who could prove they were
videotaped in the apartments of the landlord.

Judge Sargeant set a hearing for Jan. 7 when those who appeared
in the tapes can voice their opinions on the settlement
proposal.  The proposal also calls for as much as $65,000 of the
settlement money to go toward attorney fees and other legal
expenses.

Joseph Albrechta, attorney for the plaintiffs, said that once a
final settlement is approved, he will request that all the
videotapes be destroyed.

For more details, contact:
  
          Samuel G. Bolotin, Esq.
          Bolotin Co., LPA, 4349 Talmadge  
          Road, Toledo, OH 43623-3527
          Phone: (419) 472-1900

          Joseph F. Albrechta, Esq.
          Albrechta and Coble, 2255  
          Christy Road, Freemont, OH 43420
          Phone: (419) 332-9999
          Fax: (419) 332-4404


PROFESSIONAL INVESTMENT: NSW Court Blocks Westpoint-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Supreme Court ruled that a lawsuit filed by
51 people who lost money in the collapse of Westpoint could not
proceed with a class action for damages, the Sydney Morning
Herald reports.

Chief Justice Peter Young said there was insufficient common
interest among all 51 plaintiffs for the case to be tried as a
class action; lead plaintiff, Bruce Jameson, may sue a Westpoint
company, Professional Investment Services, as an individual.

Slater & Gordon filed the suit in September 2006 on behalf of
all 51 members of the group who advanced loans to Ann Street
Mezzanine and received promissory notes in return. They allege
that Professional Investment Services told them the notes were
guaranteed by Westpoint.

The suit is funded by listed litigation funder IMF (Australia)
Ltd.

The judge also ruled that the court could not hear a class
action that limited the plaintiffs to clients of these two
firms.

                         About Westpoint

Headquartered in Perth, Western Australia, the Westpoint Group
-- http://westpoint.com.au/-- is engaged in property    
development and owns or manages retail and commercial properties
with a total value of over AU$300 million.  The Group's troubles
began in 2005 when the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission commenced investigations on 160 companies within the
Westpoint Group.  ASIC's investigation led to ASIC initiating
action in late 2005 in the Federal Court of Australia against a
number of mezzanine companies in the Westpoint Group, including
winding up proceedings.  ASIC contends that Westpoint projects
are suffering from significant shortfall of assets over
liabilities so that hundreds of investors are at serious risk of
not receiving repayment of their investments.  ASIC also sought
wind-up orders after the Westpoint companies failed to comply
with its requirement to lodge accounts for certain financial
years.  These wind-up actions are still continuing.

In February 2006, the Federal Court in Perth issued a wind-up
order against Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd.  The ASIC had
applied to wind up the company on grounds of insolvency.  The
ASIC believes that Westpoint Corporation is responsible for
arranging, managing and coordinating Westpoint Group's property
projects as well as holding money for other group companies.  
The ASIC was concerned that Westpoint Corporation was unable to
pay its debts, including its obligations under the guarantees
given to the mezzanine companies to make good expected
shortfalls in the repayment of amounts owed to investors.

The Westpoint Group's collapse is considered by many as the
largest of its type in recent years, with small investors being
the biggest group affected.  Investors are currently joining
forces to commence a class action against Westpoint and its
advisors.


RETAILERS: Accused of Fraudulently Marketing Organic Milk
---------------------------------------------------------
In a scandal now ensnaring some of the nations leading
retailers, a series of lawsuits have been filed accusing Wal-
Mart, Costco, Target, Safeway, and Wild Oats of consumer fraud
for marketing suspect organic milk.

The legal filings in federal courts in Seattle, Denver, and in
Minneapolis, against the retailers, come on the heels of class
actions against Aurora Dairy Corp., based in Boulder, Colorado.

The suits against Aurora and the grocery chains allege consumer
fraud, negligence, and unjust enrichment concerning the sale of
organic milk. This past April, Aurora officials received a
notice from the U.S. Department of Agriculture detailing
multiple and "willful" violations of federal organic law that
were found by federal investigators.

"This is the largest scandal in the history of the organic
industry," said Mark Kastel of The Cornucopia Institute, a
Wisconsin-based farm policy research group. Cornucopia's own
investigations in 2005 first alerted USDA of Aurora's
improprieties.

Five lawsuits against the retailers have been filed so far. And
law firms based in Seattle, St. Louis, New York and other cities
have filed at least eight lawsuits against Aurora, representing
plaintiffs in over 30 states.

Aurora, with $100 million in annual sales, provides milk that is
sold as organic and packaged as store-brand products for many of
the nation's biggest chains. Besides Wal-Mart, Target, Costco,
and Safeway, Aurora serves as supplier to 15 other national and
regional chains.

Independent investigators at the USDA concluded earlier this
year that Aurora-with five dairy facilities in Colorado and
Texas, each milking thousands of cows-had 14 "willful"
violations of federal organic regulations. One of the most
egregious of the findings was that from December 5, 2003, to
April 16, 2007, the Aurora Dairy "labeled and represented milk
as organically produced, when such milk was not produced and
handled in accordance with the National Organic Program
regulations."

The stores sell Aurora's milk under their own in-house brand
names in cartons marked "USDA organic," and typically with
pictures of pastoral farm scenes.

"That's not even close to the reality of where this milk was
coming from," said Steve Berman, a Seattle lawyer whose firm is
among those suing. "These cows are all penned in factory-
confinement conditions."

"This is the perfect example of modern-day Agri-business bullies
literally stealing the milk money from an unsuspecting public,"
said Washington state consumer Rachael Doyle.

For more, information, contact:

          The Cornucopia Institute
          Website: http://www.cornucopia.org


RJ REYNOLDS: Minn. Appeals Court Revives “Dahl” Lights Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Court of Appeals allowed a suit claiming deceptive
marketing of "light" cigarettes to go ahead in Hennepin County
district court.

Michael Dahl and David Huber first brought their lawsuit, “Dahl
v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,” in 2003.  A Hennepin County
district judge dismissed the case on May 11, 2005, because the
“lights” claims are preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling
and Advertising Act.

On July 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Minnesota Court of Appeals for the Fourth Judicial District.
During the pendency of the appeal, RJR Tobacco removed the case
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

In general, the plaintiffs in “lights” suits allege that
defendants made false and misleading claims that “lights”
cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and /or were less
hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases
typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and
related statutes.

On February 28, 2007, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to
the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  

In allowing the case to go ahead, Judge Christopher Dietzen
disputed R.J. Reynolds' argument that the Federal Cigarette
Labeling and Advertising Act prevented a lawsuit based on state
consumer protection laws.

"On this record, we cannot detect a consistent federal policy on
low-tar claims, let alone one driven by the sort of important
means-related federal objectives necessary to pre-empt
conflicting state law," he wrote.

David Howard, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds, said the company
plans to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the appeals
court decision, according to the report.

The case is now before Judge Diana Eagon.

R.J. Reynolds is owned by Reynolds American Inc.  Reynolds
American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is  
primarily a holding company.  The company's wholly owned
operating subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa
Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane, Limited (Lane) and R. J.
Reynolds Global Products, Inc.

RAI was created to facilitate the July 30, 2004, transactions to
combine the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of British American Tobacco p.l.c., with R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.

One of the lawyers for the plaintiffs is:

          Kay Nord Hunt, Esq.
          Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P.A.
          2000 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2100
          Phone: (612) 336-9341
          Fax: 612) 339-8064
          Web site: http://www.lommen.com


SEARS: Recalls Hooded Sweaters Posing Strangulation Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Sears, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 5,200 personal identity-brand V-
neck sweaters with hood imported by A & R Knitwear, of New York,
N.Y.

The company said the recalled sweaters have a drawstring through
the hood, posing a strangulation hazard to children. In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recalled sweaters have a V-neck, hood and kangaroo
pocket. The sweaters are either pink with charcoal stripes or
blue with white stripes. They were sold in the following girls'
sizes: small, medium, large, and extra large.

The sweaters were made in Pakistan and sold at Sears stores
nationwide during September 2007 for about $34.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring to eliminate
the hazard.

For additional information, contact Sears at (800)
659-7026 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday,
or visit http://www.sears.com.

Note: CPSC was alerted to this hazard by the State of
Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection.

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the
recalled product, please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08118.html


SIMPLICITY INC: Crib Manufacturers Face Suit Over Design Flaw
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Simplicity Inc., Target
Corp. and Graco Children’s Products, Inc. after numerous
incidents, including the death of 3 children, occurred due to a
crib design flaw.

Just prior to the filing of this lawsuit, the U.S. Product &
Safety Commission announced their largest recall of full-sized
cribs. The recalled cribs include the Aspen 4 in 1 that was sold
between 1998 and May 2007.

The lawsuit states that Simplicity should have warned customers
of the dangers of the cribs and should have stopped selling them
immediately.

Questions concerning why it took two years for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission to recall the cribs have been
circulating. A congressional hearing has been requested in this
matter.

Ross Cellino urges “If your child or the child of a loved one
has been injured as a result of the Aspen 4 in 1 crib or any
other crib for that matter, please contact our office
immediately. We are here to help you.”

For more information, contact:

          Cellino & Barnes
          Phone: 1-800-483-2050
          Website: http://www.CellinoandBarnes.com


TEMPUR PEDIC: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. Ga. Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has
dismissed an antitrust class action complaint filed Jan. 5
against Tempur Pedic International Inc.

On January 5, 2007 a purported class action was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Rome Division.  The action alleges
violations of federal antitrust law arising from the pricing of
Tempur-Pedic mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North America and
certain distributors.  

The action further alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur-
Pedic mattresses in the United States since January 5, 2003 and
seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June
25, 2007 based on a motion filed by the Company. Then, following
a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court in “Leegin
Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.,” on June 28, 2007,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts
of the complaint on July 10, 2007.

The Company strongly believes that the action filed in the
Georgia, Rome Division lacks merit, and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously.

Commenting on the recent ruling, Anita Nesser, Vice President
and Corporate Counsel of Tempur Pedic, stated, "We are quite
pleased that the court agreed completely with our view that the
plaintiff's allegations were without merit, and dismissed this
case in its entirety."  

The suit is “Jacobs et al v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
Case Number: 4:2007cv00002,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge Robert L.
Vining Jr.


WEST PUBLISHING: N.Y. Court Dismisses Suit Over BAR/BRI Course
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the Northern District of
New York dismissed a class action filed against West Publishing
Corp., and its parent company, Thomson Corp. the BAR/BRI bar
review course, Amanda Bronstad of The National Law Journal
reports.

The suit was filed by Robert Arleo of Haines Falls, N.Y. in
July.  He alleges that the defendants used deceptive advertising
materials to overcharge tens of thousands of law school students
preparing for the New York bar exam.  He said both companies
offered consumers with fraudulent and misleading claims, such as
that they must take the BAR/BRI bar review course in order to
pass the state's bar exams.  He alleges violations of New York's
general business law, and is seeking $48 million in damages.

In dismissing the suit, Judge Kahn disputed that the advertising
materials were deceptive or misleading.  He also said ruled that
plaintiffs did not suffer actual injuries from the alleged
conduct.

Mr. Arleo is still undecided whether to appeal, according to Ms.
Bronstad.


                         Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Casella Waste Reserves $366,000 for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems Inc., for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2007,
recorded US$366,000 for asbestos-related cleanup matters,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 7, 2007.

On July 12, 2005, Company subsidiary North County Environmental
Services Inc. (NCES) received notice from the Office of the
Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire (OAG) that it has
commenced an official investigation into allegations that
asbestos was concealed in loads of construction and demolition
debris from a hotel renovation, delivered to the NCES landfill
by a third party, and disposed there on several occasions
between 1999 and 2002.

While NCES has maintained that no asbestos was disposed of at
the site, the OAG continued to be concerned that NCES did not
operate in accordance with its landfill Operating Procedures so
as to ensure that no asbestos was disposed of in the landfill.
NCES has cooperated fully in the investigation.

NCES has engaged in discussions with the OAG over the terms of a
possible civil settlement regarding this matter which would
involve environmental remediation at sites in New Hampshire at
which the Company had no prior involvement.

The OAG and the Company have reached an agreement with respect
to this dispute in the form of a Consent Decree.

The Consent Decree, while making it clear that the Company has
admitted no wrongdoing, provides for the Company to make
payments and provide services to various parties designated by
the Consent Decree for total consideration of about US$366,000.

Rutland, Vt.-based Casella Waste Systems Inc. is a vertically-
integrated regional solid waste services company that provides
collection, transfer, disposal and recycling services to
residential, industrial and commercial customers, primarily in
the eastern United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Clause Extends to All Insurance Cos.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Court orders relating to the estimation proceedings of
ASARCO LLC's asbestos liabilities stated that the portion of any
plan of reorganization in the Debtors' cases and any order
confirming that plan addressing the Debtors' asbestos
liabilities will not be binding on and will not have any res
judicata or collateral estoppel effect on or against Fireman's
Fund Insurance Co. regarding its insurance coverage obligations.

The Court Orders further provided that:

1. No reorganization plan will operate to expand the rights of
any party or trust or diminish the duties and their obligations
as to rights that exist under any policies issued by FFIC as of
the Aug. 9, 2005 Petition Date; and

2. FFIC's non-participation in the negotiation of a
reorganization plan will not be held against or in favor of any
entity in any pending insurance coverage litigation concerning
the Debtors' asbestos liabilities.

Certain other insurance companies, other than FFIC, have or may
assert an interest in the asbestos proceedings, Jack L. Kinzie,
Esq., at Baker Botts LLP, in Dallas, tells the Court.
Specifically, he notes, certain insurance defendants in
adversary proceedings commenced by the Debtors have asked to
enter into agreements that would afford them benefits and
protections that are comparable to the benefits and protections
afforded to FFIC in the Asbestos Orders.

Thus, ASARCO LLC and the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors agree that
the asbestos estimation proceedings be "neutral" to all
insurance companies that have or may assert an interest in the
asbestos estimation proceedings, rather than being limited to
FFIC.

Accordingly, the Debtors ask the Court to enter an order binding
all insurance companies in the "neutrality" clause afforded to
FFIC.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 61; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO to Hire Anderson Kill as Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
After the Aug. 9, 2005 Petition Date, ASARCO LLC obtained Court
approval to employ Anderson Kill & Olick, L.L.P., as its special
insurance counsel. Thereafter, ASARCO obtained Court approval to
expand the scope of Anderson Kill's employment to include the:

(i) Analysis of certain prepetition insurance settlement and
buybacks and

(ii) Advisory services in connection with potential bankruptcy
law actions relating to those settlements and buybacks.

Nathaniel Peter Holzer, at Jordan, Hyden, Womble Culbreth &
Holzer, P.C., in Corpus Christi, Tex., tells the Court that the
Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors have similar issues concerning
prepetition insurance settlement and buybacks.

As a result, ASARCO and the Asbestos Debtors have filed a number
of fraudulent conveyance actions, which are currently abated by
Court order.

In light of the substantial work Anderson Kill has performed for
ASARCO and the impossibility of obtaining alternative counsel
for the Asbestos Debtors at this late juncture, the Subsidiary
Debtors states that they have an immediate need to retain
Anderson Kill to perform the same services the firm performs for
ASARCO.

Accordingly, the Asbestos Debtors seek the Court's authority to
employ Anderson Kill as their special insurance counsel, nunc
pro tunc to April 11, 2005.

Mr. Holzer says Anderson Kill will apply to the Court for
compensation in connection with its services to the Asbestos
Debtors at either its customary hourly rates or the discounted
rates the firm previously agreed with ASARCO. Anderson Kill will
also be reimbursed for any necessary out-of-pocket expenses.

Rhonda D. Orin, a partner at Anderson Kill, assures the Court
that her firm does not represent any interest adverse to ASARCO,
the Asbestos Debtors, and their estates, and is a "disinterested
person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the
Bankruptcy Code.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 61; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Filing of Late Claims May Delay ASARCO Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Permitting Mt. McKinley Insurance Co. and Everest Reinsurance
Co. to file late proofs of claim would prejudice ASARCO LLC and
delay its reorganization process, Omar J. Alaniz, at Baker Botts
LLP, in Dallas, contends. "The floodgates would open for
creditors in similar situation to take advantage of the
Insurance Companies' inexcusable complacency," he says.

ASARCO LLC assures the Court that it is laboriously drafting and
negotiating its plan of reorganization and is on schedule to
file it relatively soon.  

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the Asbestos
Subsidiary Debtors and Robert C. Pate, the Court-appointed
Future Claims Representative, support ASARCO's opposition to the
Insurance Companies' request.  

The Asbestos Committee and the FCR assert that the Insurance
Companies' failure to file the proofs of claim on or before the
Bar does not constitute excusable neglect.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 61; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Other Parties File Daubert Motions
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants, David Austern, the Court-appointed Future
Claims Representative, and the Official Committee of Equity
Security Holders filed motions to exclude or limit, under
Daubert and Rules 702 and 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,
testimony related to the Debtors' asbestos personal injury
liabilities.

The Debtors seek to exclude from evidence these expert reports
and testimonies:

-- The reports, testimony, and opinions of PI Committee experts
Mark A. Peterson, the Peterson Rebuttal Report, the Stephen M.
Snyder Rebuttal Report, and the Daniel P. Myer and Mark T.
Eveland Rebuttal Report;

-- The reports, testimony, and opinions of FCR experts Jennifer
Biggs, Biggs Supplemental Report, Biggs Rebuttal Report, P.J.
Eric Stallard, Stallard Supplemental Report, Marshall Shapo
Rebuttal Report, and Jacob Jacoby Rebuttal Report;

-- Any opinions, evidence, or testimony seeking to establish
exposure to asbestos based on any "settled-dust analysis;"

-- Any opinions, evidence, or testimony seeking to establish
exposure to asbestos based on any "indirect-preparation method;"

-- Any opinions, evidence, or testimony seeking to establish
causation of asbestos-related disease based on anecdotal
evidence, including but not limited to, case reports or case
series;

-- Any opinions, evidence, or testimony seeking to establish
causation of an asbestos-related disease not supported by
epidemiological evidence showing a relative risk greater than
2.0, the confidence interval for which does not include a
relative risk of 1.0;

-- Any opinions, evidence, or testimony seeking to establish the
causation of an asbestos-related disease based on a "no-
threshold" or "zero-threshold" theory of causation, including
but not limited to, any calculations derived from or relying on
those theories to those causation; and

-- Any opinions, evidence, or testimony seeking to establish the
occurrence or incidence of non-malignant asbestos-related
disease based on diagnoses that do not include an exposure
history with an appropriate latency period, chest radiograph
evidence or small irregular opacities with an appropriate
profusion as evaluated under ILO standards, a PFT revealing a
restrictive impairment and below-normal diffusion capacity, a
physical examination showing signs and symptoms, and a
differential diagnosis of asbestosis that reliably rules out
alternative causes of the disease.

In a memorandum supporting their Daubert Motion, the Debtors
assert that the PI Committee and the FCR's expert testimonies
are not "fit" under Rule 702 and 408 because the expert
testimonies measure the wrong thing -- Grace's hypothetical cost
to resolve cases in the state-court tort system rather than
Grace's legal liability.  

The PI Committee and the FCR's experts did not assume that Grace
has filed for bankruptcy and, thus neither the company's
bankruptcy nor any implications that flow from the application  
of bankruptcy law or procedures has any impact or effect on the
estimates, David M. Bernick, P.C., at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, in
Chicago, points out.  

Mr. Bernick also asserts that the PI Committee and the FCR's
expert opinions are barred under the reliability prong of Rule
702 as the PI Committee and the FCR's experts cannot show that
their measurements are performed using "scientifically reliable"
methods because they rely on historical settlement amounts
rather than on "established, objective methods" of industrial
hygience and epidemiology.  

A full-text copy of the 85-page Debtors' Memorandum is available
for free at http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_daubertmemorandum.pdf

Judge Judith Fitzgerald directed parties-in-interest to file
oppositions to the initial Daubert briefs and submit a list of
trial exhibits and witnesses, and pre-trial briefs by Dec. 21,
2007.

The PI Committee and the FCR have notified Judge Fitzgerald at
an omnibus hearing that they would provide a written statement
providing the subject areas of expected testimony of each of
Stephen Snyder, Peter Kraus, John Cooney and Theodore Goldberg.

The Court authorized the PI Committee to file under seal the
unredacted versions of the expert rebuttal reports of Dr.
Peterson and Mr. Snyder.

The Court also directed the Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos PI
Trust to produce the electronic datasets, claimant information,
claims processing information and other information to the
Debtors. The Owens Corning information will be used solely in
connection with the Grace estimation proceeding. The Debtors
will bear the costs incurred by the Owens Corning Trust in
extracting the information to be produced.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 145; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Denies Grace's Rehearing Plea
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit denied the
request of W.R. Grace & Co. and six of its former executives for
an en banc rehearing of the September 2007 decision of a three-
judge panel composed of Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher, Harry
Pregerson, and Warren Ferguson reinstating conspiracy charges
against Grace and its executives relating to the alleged
asbestos poisoning in Libby, Mont.

In late September 2007, the 9th Circuit panel overturned a
decision by District Judge Molloy in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana and reinstated the conspiracy charges
filed by the U.S. Government against Grace and its officers.

The Government, in 2005, commenced a criminal case against Grace
and its officers for alleged conspiracy in violation of
environmental laws and obstruction of federal agency proceedings  
relating to asbestos poisoning of residents in Libby, Mont.

According to Tricia Bishop of The Baltimore Sun, an en banc
rehearing would have further delayed the trial of the case.  

"The denial of an en banc rehearing moves the case a step closer
to trial assuming Grace does not ask the [U.S.] Supreme Court to
review the issue," Allen M. Bradender, who is among the Justice
Department attorneys prosecuting the case, told Baltimore Sun.

"Grace is disappointed, and the company is evaluating its
options," Greg Euston, Grace's spokesman related to the Sun.

A second Grace request for appeal, which will determine whether
certain government witnesses may testify against the company,
was granted earlier this year and will be heard next week by the
full 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Sun
says.

In its form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in August 2007, Grace said it may face as much as
$280,000,000 in fines, if convicted in the criminal case. Its
officers may also be sentenced to as many as 15 years in prison
if convicted.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 145; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustees Want Tersigni Inquiry to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana G. Adams, U.S. Trustee for Region 2, and Kelly Stapleton,
U.S. Trustee for Region 3, have jointly asked Judge Alan H.W.
Shiff of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Connecticut to lift the automatic stay afforded to L. Tersigni
Consulting, CPA, to the extent necessary to:

(i) Proceed with the appointment of an examiner in the
investigation on the accounting firm's alleged overbillings to
asbestos companies who have pending bankruptcy cases outside
Connecticut; and

(ii) Determine any causes of action the bankrupt companies may
have against the firm.  

To recall, the Tersigni firm is subject to the investigation
conducted by the office of the Region 3 U.S. Trustee due to
alleged fraudulent bill paddings of its deceased owner, Loreto
Tersigni.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the bankruptcy courts overseeing seven major
asbestos bankruptcy cases in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey, including those of W.R. Grace & Co., Federal-Mogul
Global-Inc., and Pittsburgh Corning Corp., have permitted the
Region 3 U.S. Trustee to appoint an examiner to oversee the
investigation.

On that same day, the Tersigni firm sought Chapter 11 protection
before the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court. The firm is
automatically afforded a stay, which bars creditors from
prosecuting any action against the firm's property.

The U.S. Trustees told Judge Alan H.W. Shiff that immediate
approval on their request is necessary because Judge Judith
Fitzgerald, who is overseeing the asbestos cases pending in
Delaware and Pennsylvania, has scheduled a final hearing in
those cases for Dec. 11, 2007, to resolve all remaining issues
related to selection of the examiner, the investigation's scope,
and apportionment of costs among the various estates.

The firm said it doesn't know how much it may be forced to give
back to the bankruptcy companies but believes that its own
claims against various parties "exceed whatever claims" it may
face in its own bankruptcy case, the Associated Press related.  

Under a plan of liquidation it filed with the Connecticut Court,
the firm intends to give holders of general unsecured creditors   
100 percent recovery of their claims. The firm has listed Grace
as a general unsecured creditor for an "unknown" amount for
"potential fee adjustment."  

The firm also listed assets of US$2,229,659, primarily composed
of about US$1,700,000 in accounts receivables, US$500,000 in
cash, US$16,000 in security deposit, and US$10,000 in office
supplies and equipment.

Aside from the lift stay request, Ms. Adams has also asked Judge
Shiff to convert Tersigni's bankruptcy case to a case under
Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code so that the estate would be
administered by an independent fiduciary, like a Chapter 7
trustee; and to avoid higher administrative costs attendant in a
Chapter 11 case.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 145; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Grace Settlement w/ PD Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bankruptcy Court approves the settlements W.R. Grace & Co.
entered into with eight asbestos related property damage  
claimants represented by the law firm Motley Rice LLP:

-- CHP Associates Inc.,
-- Fargo Housing and Redevelopment,
-- The Catholic Diocese of Little Rock,
-- The Church of St. Helena of Minneapolis,
-- The Church of the Most Holy Redeemer,
-- The American Legion,
-- Port of Seattle, and
-- state of Washington.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 145; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Settles w/ National Union, Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2002, W.R. Grace & Co. commenced an adversary
proceeding against National Union Fire Insurance Co. of
Pittsburgh, and its affiliates to enjoin them from making
payments to certain asbestos personal injury claimants
represented by the law firms Reaud, Morgan & Quinn Inc., and
Environmental Litigation Group P.C.

Before the April 2, 2001 Petition Date, the Debtors caused
National Union to issue two surety bonds to Grace for the
benefit of the Reaud Morgan and ELG Claimants. The Debtors and
the Claimants agreed prepetition that if the claimants are able
to supply "Qualifying Materials" to support their PI Claims,
they will be eligible for payment.

Under their Adversary Proceeding, the Debtors alleged that the
Reaud Morgan and ELG Claimants did not provide enough
documentation to support that their claims are eligible for
payment, and thus are not owed any amounts as required under the
prepetition agreements.

Since the commencement of the Adversary Proceeding until early
2007, the Debtors, National Union, and the law firms conducted
discovery and made oral arguments before the Court.  

During the course of the Debtors' bankruptcy cases, National
Union filed Claim No. 9553 for US$46,971,764, plus unliquidated
amounts, which it asserts, are secured by certain prepetition
letters of credit.  

The Claimants also filed Claim Nos. 103, 104, 13945, 13954,
14036 and 14053 for unpaid amounts under the prepetition
agreements.

In July 2007, Judge Judith Fitzgerald determined that National
Union was obligated to pay the Claimants on account of Qualified  
Claims submitted more than 60 days before the Petition Date.

The Debtors, the Reaud Morgan and ELG Claimants and National
Union then engaged in good faith discussions regarding the form
of order memorializing the Court's July 2007 rulings.

While the parties essentially reached an agreement with respect
to the correct value of the Qualified Claims that should be
paid, they were unable to agree on the issue of prejudgment
interest.

Subsequently, the parties negotiated to resolve the outstanding
issues between them. They ultimately were able to resolve:

(a) all issues regarding all claims that have been submitted to
the Debtors for payment under the prepetition agreements;

(b) the issue of prejudgment interest;

(c) how the amounts owing under the prepetition agreements will
be funded by National Union;

(d) the allowed amount of National Union's Claim;

(e) the release of the Bonds;

(f) satisfaction and cancellation of the prepetition agreements
and disallowance of the Claimants' Claims; and

(g) dismissal of the Adversary Proceeding.

The Settlement requires National Union to pay US$15,350,000 to
the Claimants in full satisfaction of their Claims against the
Debtors. After payment, the prepetition Bonds will be canceled
and the Adversary Proceeding will be dismissed.

To partially fund the Payment Amount, National Union will draw
down US$6,710,110 from two letters of credits issued by the Bank
of America, N.A. Both letters of credit will be canceled after
the withdrawal.

National Union will be entitled to a US$9,806,018 unsecured,
prepetition, non-priority claim against the Debtors. In the
event that any plan or plans of reorganization that will be
confirmed in the Debtors' bankruptcy cases provides for payment
of interest on unsecured, prepetition, non-priority claims,
National Union's claim will bear interest at the rate provided
in that plan.

National Union may assert further claims for:

-- Legal fees and expenses accrued in connection with the Bonds
for legal services after Sept. 30, 2007;

-- Any additional amounts due for premiums arising under the
Bonds in excess of the amount in the allowed prepetition, non-
priority claim;

-- Any amounts due for premiums arising under the US$31,772,596
Surety Bond issued by National Union's affiliate, American Home
Assurance Co., on behalf of the Debtors in favor of the
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment; and

-- Any other amounts unrelated to the Bonds that may be due to
National Union or to any of its affiliates.

If the Tennessee Bond is drawn before the Debtors' emergence
from their bankruptcy cases, National Union will be allowed a
general unsecured claim for any draw or other costs and expenses
that may arise in connection with the Tennessee Bond. If the
Tennessee Bond remains undrawn on the emergence date, the
Debtors will assume the agreement establishing that Bond and  
perform their obligations under that Bond in the ordinary course
of their businesses.

The claims filed by the Reaud Morgan and ELG Claimants will be
expunged and disallowed. If the Claimants seek to pursue claims,
which they allege were covered under the prepetition agreements
but were not submitted to the Debtors because of their Chapter
11 filing, they will have until March 3, 2008, to file those
proofs of claim. National Union will no longer have any
liability to those claims.

To the extent National Union makes payments under the
prepetition agreements or under the Tennessee Bonds, and to the
extent it has a right of setoff, National Union will have an
allowed administrative priority claim against the Debtors equal
in value, if any, to the right of setoff. The administrative
priority claim, however, will not be allowed or be paid until
the Court determines that National Union has a right of setoff.

The parties also mutually agree to forever bar and enjoin from
asserting additional claims against each other with any matters
relating to the Settlement.

Judge Fitzgerald approves the Settlement and dismisses the
Adversary Proceeding.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 145; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court Affirms Disallowance Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware ruled that the law firm Speights and Runyan  
did not have authority to file proofs of claim in W.R. Grace's
cases on behalf of certain asbestos-related property damage
claimants.

Certain PD Claimants represented by Speights & Runyan have asked
the District Court to determine:

(1) Whether Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald of the the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware err in expunging
the PD Claims on the basis that a putative class counsel did not
have authority to file the claim on behalf of the claimant who
was a member of the putative class;

(2) Whether the Bankruptcy Court err in expunging the PD Claims
on the basis that the Appellants were precluded as a matter of
law from ratifying a timely proof of claim even when the
Claimants have not received actual notice of the Bar Date; and

(3) Whether the Bankruptcy Court err in expunging the PD Claims
without an evidentiary hearing or without making specific
findings of fact as to when the claimants received actual Bar
Date Notice.

In a 15-page memorandum, he noted that the law firm was not an
authorized agent of the Appellants under Rule 3001(b) of the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The Appellants have
argued that Speights and Runyan has authority to file the PD
Claims because it was the class counsel of the putative class in
the Anderson Memorial-South Carolina litigation, of which the
Appellants are class members.

Judge Buckwalter said the Appellants's argument is misplaced. He
pointed out that under general agency principles, "a class
representative cannot be considered the authorized agent of all
the creditors of the putative class," citing In re Standard
Metals, 817 F.2d at 631 (10th Cir. 1987), vac'd on other
grounds, 839 F.2d 1383 (1988).  

Judge Buckwalter also held that the Appellants' post-Bar Date
authorizations did not amount to effective ratifications.

Citing In re Federal Election Commnication v. NRA Political
Victory Fund, 513 U.S. 88, 115 Supreme Court 537 (1994), Judge
Buckwalter said "allowing late authorizations would effectively
give Speights & Runyan the unilateral power to extend the Bar
Date, and the rights of both the Debtors and the other creditors
who properly and timely filed their claims would be severely
impaired by validating the Appellants' PD Claims."

Furthermore, Judge Buckwalter found that the Appellants were not
"known" claimants entitled to actual notice.  

Judge Buckwalter said the Bankruptcy Court, in consultation with
the Debtors and the Official Committee of Asbestos Property
Damage Claimants, agreed that the most practical solution for a
workable notice package and system of publication was to provide
actual notice to all named parties to PD cases pending before
the Petition Date as well as to all known PD lawyers.  

Judge Buckwalter added that it was made clear to Speights &
Runyan that they had the responsibility to serve their clients
and would best known of clients who might be interested in
filing PD Claims.

Judge Buckwalter said he would not give the Appellants the
opportunity to conduct discovery and present evidence that they
were in fact known creditors. He pointed out that Speights &
Runyan clearly had knowledge of the Appellants' identities for
the law firm to file individual proofs of claim on their behalf.     
Judge Buckwalter said the Appellants were in fact "known" by
Speights & Runyan despite not being reasonably ascertainable via
the Debtors' records.

Judge Buckwalter affirmed Judge Fitzgerald's order expunging and
disallowing the PD Claims filed by these creditors:

  1. 1199 SEIU,
  2. 99 Founders Plaza,
  3. Abbeville General Hospital,
  4. Baptist Health Medical Center - Little Rock,
  5. Bethesda Rehabilitation Hospital,
  6. Carson Pirie Scott Store #537,
  7. Cayuga County Office Building,
  8. Dodge County Hospital,
  9. First Health Montgomery Memorial Hospital,
10. First Tennessee Bank - Court Thomas Computer Center,
11. First Tennessee Bank,
12. Friendly Home Nursing Care & Rehabilitation,
13. Fulton County Health Center,
14. Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center,
15. Harry C. Levy Gardens,
16. Hotel Captain Cook - Tower #2,
17. IBM Metro Employees Federal Credit Union,
18. Jordan Hospital Inc.,
19. Keller Building,
20. Manor Oak Two,
21. McKenzie Willamette Medical Center,
22. Mission Towers,
23. Nebraska Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation,
24. New Hanover Regional Medical Center,
25. Ohio Savings Plaza,
26. Oneida County Office Building,
27. Palos Community Hospital,
28. Panda Prints,
29. Pierre LaClede Center No. 1 & 2,
30. Santa Teresa Medical Office Building,
31. Schuyler Hospital,
32. Scottish Rite Cathedral,
33. St. Anthony's Regional Hospital & Nursing Home,
34. St. Joseph's Hill Infirmary Nursing Home,
35. St. Luke's Hospital,
36. St. Mary's Medical Center,
37. The Homeplace of Mondovi Hospital,
38. Titusville Hospital,
39. University of New England - Westbrook Campus,
40. Virtua Health – West Jersey Hospital Voorhees,
41. Virtua West Jersey Hospital Marlton,
42. Washington Township Health Care District, and
43. Y.W.C.A. of Greater Des Moines.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 145; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana to Assume Mt. McKinley, Century Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mt. McKinley Insurance Co. and Century Indemnity Co. and the
Debtors are parties to certain insurance policies, which Dana
Corp. may claim an entitlement to coverage from McKinley and
Century asbestos-related personal injury claims.   

McKinley filed Claim Nos. 13015 through and including 13055 and
Century filed Claim No. 13214 against the Debtors for the
amounts that the Debtors may owe McKinley and Century in the
future if McKinley is called upon to provide insurance coverage
to the Debtors pursuant to the McKinley and Century policies.

Thus, to avoid the cost, delay and burden of litigating
potential disputes related the McKinley and Century Claims, the  
Debtors, McKinley and Century agree that the insurance policies
will be assumed or continued, as applicable, by the appropriate
reorganized Debtors.

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 65; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scapa Group Still Has Injury Suits in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scapa Group plc says it continues to be involved in a number of
cases in the United States arising from the alleged exposure of
paper mill workers to asbestos in a product which was
manufactured by a business sold to J M Voith AG in 1999.

The Company said it has appealed to the New Jersey Court of
Appeals against the verdict in respect of claims of asbestos
exposure brought by five former paper mill workers, two of whom
are deceased.

The claims were against Scapa Dryers Inc. and the verdict was in
favor of the defense in respect of two of the plaintiffs, and an
adverse verdict in respect of the other plaintiffs amounting to
US$823,050.

However, the Company's insurance cover counsel has advised that
there is sufficient liability insurance to satisfy the judgment
in full if it is not reversed on appeal.

Asbestos litigation defense expenses in the first half was
reduced to GBP300,000 from GBP400,000, due to lower legal
activity during the period.

The Company posted a higher first-half pretax profit, saying the
ongoing improvement in trading performance reflects good revenue
growth in all three regions and cost reduction implemented in
the last two years.

The Company said its pretax profit for the six months to Sept.
30, 2007 rose to GBP3.6 million from GBP2.1 million last year.
Its turnover fell to GBP85.2 million from GBP97.9 million a year
ago.

Greater Manchester, U.K.-based Scapa Group plc makes technical
adhesive tapes and films used by the automotive, aerospace,
graphic arts, sports, electronics, industrial assembly, and
medical markets. The Company's commercial customers use its
technical tapes for assembly and repair, protection, insulation,
and identification.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filed on Laborer's Behalf v. 61 Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of her brother Herbert Hollis, Betty Talley filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 61 defendant corporations on
Nov. 27, 2007 in Madison County Circuit Court, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

Represented by Rand Gori of Edwardsville, Ill., Ms. Talley filed
the suit against the 61 firms, alleging that during the course
of Mr. Hollis' employment and during home and automotive repairs
he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed
asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working
with and around.

According to the complaint, Mr. Hollis was employed during the
1940s as a laborer at Merita Bakery. From 1947 through 1990, he
was a self-employed laborer pouring and finishing cement at
residential locations. He worked at Sears in the 1950s. And from
1961 until 1990, he worked as a laborer at Consolidated Pipe, a
lumber yard, UAB, and Barry Pattern and Foundry.

Mr. Hollis lived on 5th Avenue in Birmingham, Ala. Ms. Talley
claims he was diagnosed with lung cancer on Dec. 10, 2002, and
later learned his disease was wrongfully caused.

Ms. Talley claims the defendants knew or should have known that
the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic,
poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of
people.

Ms. Talley also alleges that the defendants included asbestos in
their products even when adequate substitutes were available and
failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the
safe methods of working with and around asbestos.

Ms. Talley claims that the defendants failed to require and
advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or
prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

Ms. Talley also claims that she has sought, but has been unable
to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information
from the defendants leading her to believe the defendants
destroyed documents related to asbestos.

Ms. Talley claims that as a result of each defendant breaching
its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents
and information he has been prejudiced and impaired in proving
claims against all potential parties.

According to Ms. Talley, Mr. Hollis died on Dec. 10, 2005,
exactly three years after learning of his illness. She claims
that prior to his death, Mr. Hollis experienced pain and
suffering, medical expenses and lost wages.

Ms. Talley also claims Mr. Hollis' family also became liable for
his funeral and burial expenses and has been deprived of his
means and support.

Mr. Hollis' estate seeks damages in excess of US$500,000, plus
costs of the suit.

Case No. 07 L 1000 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Daniel
Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Favors N.Y. Over Intriago in Injury Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 2nd Department, upheld
the ruling of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied
Ecuador Intriago summary judgment, in a lawsuit concerning the
removal of asbestos filed against the City of New York, New York
City Department of Design and Construction, New York City School
Construction Authority, and WDF Inc.

Judges Robert A. Spolzino, Gabriel M. Krausman, Gloria
Goldstein, and Thomas A. Dickerson, entered judgment of Case No.
2006-07962 (Index No. 46903/2000) on Oct. 30, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Mr.
Intriago appealed, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings
County, entered June 23, 2006, as denied that branch of his
motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability
on his Labor Law s 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted.

Mr. Intriago was assigned to perform asbestos abatement work in
a boiler room of a New York City public school. In preparing to
do so, he hung plastic sheets along the wall of the boiler room,
a task which required the use of a ladder.

According to Mr. Intriago, he was provided with several A-frame
ladders of varying heights. He selected the smallest ladder and
opened it partially, leaving its hinges unlocked, because a
"boiler" behind him prevented him from fully opening the ladder.  
While using the ladder in this manner, it closed, causing him to
lose his balance and fall to the ground.

Mr. Intriago acknowledged that he did not properly use the A-
frame ladder. Moreover, he failed to submit evidence of the
dimensions of the space in which he partially opened the ladder
or the dimensions of the ladder.

Thus, Mr. Intriago's conclusory assertion that he was unable to
fully open the ladder failed to establish, prima facie, that the
ladder was insufficient to provide proper protection from an
elevation-related hazard.

In light of the foregoing, Mr. Intriago did not establish his
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his cause of
action under Labor Law s 240(1).

Accordingly, without examining the sufficiency of the
respondents' opposition papers, the Supreme Court concluded that
the the branch of Mr. Intriago's motion which was for summary
judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law s 240(1)
cause of action was properly denied.

Taub & Marder, New York, (Kenneth Marder and Chad P. Ayoub of
counsel), represented Ecuador Intriago.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin
M. Helmers and Ann E. Scherzer of counsel), represented the City
of New York, New York City Department of Design and
Construction, and New York City School Construction
Authority.

Cozen O'Connor, New York, (Vincent P. Pozzuto and Lee N.
Mermelstein of counsel), represented WDF Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Consolidation of Foster Wheeler Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 2, California,
issued a temporary stay of an Oct. 16, 2007 order for
consolidation in an asbestos-related action involving Foster
Wheeler LLC and The Superior Court of San Francisco County.

The case is styled Foster Wheeler LLC v. The Superior Court of
San Francisco County; Jersey Gray et al., Real Parties in
Interest.

Judges Kline, Lamdben, and Richman entered judgment of Case No.
A119429 on Nov. 2, 2007.

Foster Wheeler is the defendant in two separate asbestos cases
that were consolidated for trial after voir dire had already
begun in one of the cases. Two days after the San Francisco
County Superior Court ordered the cases consolidated, Foster
Wheeler filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking immediate
relief from the trial court's order of Oct. 16, 2007,
consolidating certain cases.

These cases are styled Jersey Gray and Shirley Gray v. Asbestos
Defendants (B-P), San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-07-
274042 (hereafter Gray case) and Judy Oxford, et al. v. Asbestos
Defendants (B-P), San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-05-
440328 (hereafter Oxford case), for trial.

Pending determination of the petition, the Appeals Court issued
a temporary stay of the Oct. 16, 2007 order consolidating the
cases for trial and requested real parties in interest to file
points and authorities in opposition to the petition.

The Plaintiff Real Parties in Interest have filed a brief in
opposition to the petition, and two defendant real parties in
interest have filed briefs in support of the petition.

On Oct. 9, 2007, the Oxford case was sent to Judge Tomar Mason
in Department 608 for trial. The jurors had filled out
questionnaires, been examined for hardship, and were to begin
voir dire on Oct. 16, 2007. Before the beginning of voir dire,
the Gray case was also sent to Judge Mason for trial on Oct. 16,
2007.

The parties appeared before Judge Mason to discuss scheduling
matters regarding both cases. At that time the Oxford case was a
group of three wrongful death actions involving decedents who
died from mesothelioma.

The Gray case is a personal injury action involving a plaintiff
who is suffering from renal (kidney) cancer and his wife who is
seeking damages for loss of consortium. The Gray case was
granted trial preference on May 22, 2007, because of substantial
medical doubt that Mr. Gray would survive beyond six months.

Brayton Purcell, counsel for plaintiffs in both cases, asked the
court to either send the Gray case back to the presiding judge
for reassignment because of serious concerns that Mr. Gray would  
die soon, or to allow it to be tried first with the jury panel
then being called, or failing those two options, to consolidate
the Oxford and Gray cases for purposes of trial.

The opposition brief filed by plaintiff real parties in interest
states that the Oxford group of cases has since dropped to only
the Oxford cause of action.

The Appeals Court concluded that the trial court abused its
discretion in ordering the cases consolidated for trial.

James Carl Parker, Brydon Hugo & Parker, San Francisco,
represented Foster Wheeler LLC.

David R. Donadio, Gilbert Purcell, Brayton, Purcell, LLP,
Novato, Calif. Philip Stephen Ward, Hassard Bonnington LLP, San
Francisco, Patrick J. Byrne, Knox Ricksen LLP, Oakland, Calif.,
represented Jersey Gray.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Lawyer Gets 15-Year Jail Time for Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida
said that Louis S. Robles, a former Miami attorney, was
sentenced to 15 years in prison and ordered to pay US$13.5
million in restitution for mishandling US$13.5 million for
clients in asbestos injury cases, South Florida Business Journal
reports.

The 59-year-old Mr. Robles pleaded guilty to three counts of
federal mail fraud in September 2007. He allegedly used the
funds to support a luxury oceanfront home, travel and other
business investments.

According to court documents, Mr. Robles misappropriated
settlement proceeds in a pyramid scheme from trust accounts that
he maintained on behalf of his asbestos clients. From the 1980s
through February 2003, he represented more than 7,000 asbestos
clients.

A press release from the U.S. attorney's office said clients
experienced ever-increasing delays in receiving settlement
proceeds, as Mr. Robles defrauded them of ever-increasing sums.
The US$13.5 million was siphoned from 4,393 defrauded clients
over several years.

In an attempt to stem off complaints from his defrauded asbestos
clients, Mr. Robles sent out newsletters that falsely claimed
that he was withholding settlement proceeds until the various
clients' suits were settled against all asbestos defendants who
had been sued on behalf of the clients.

According to the press release, Mr. Robles had used the money to
support a 9,000-square-foot waterfront home on Key Biscayne with
a monthly mortgage of more than US$48,000.

Mr. Robles also paid substantial sums for domestic help and
other household expenses and improvements on the property. At
different times during the fraud scheme, he and his then-wife
were spending more than US$2 million a year in mortgage payments
and various living and travel expenses.

Mr. Robles also invested and lost millions of dollars in various
startup ventures in the motion picture business, the recording
business and the waste management and recycling business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gordon-Smith Issued $100T Fine for Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon-Smith Contracting Inc., a Chili, N.Y.-based contractor,
has been ordered to pay nearly US$100,000 in federal fines on
allegations that workers were exposed to asbestos hazards while
demolishing the former Genesee Hospital, Rochester Democrat and
Chronicle reports.

On Dec. 4, 2007, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration said that it issued Gordon-Smith citations for
three "willful" and seven "serious" violations with proposed
fines totaling US$99,925.

Arthur Dube, director of the Buffalo-area OSHA office, said,
“This employer knows these safeguards are required to protect
employees against asbestos exposure, yet elected to not provide
them.”

Lawyers for Gordon-Smith informed OSHA officials on Dec. 4, 2007
that the Company intended to contest the charges, Mr. Dube said.
He said the investigation of Gordon-Smith started Sept. 4, 2007.

Keith Gordon-Smith, president of the general contracting firm,
said the allegations were not true and the OSHA ruling was based
on "99 percent hearsay."

Mr. Dube said OSHA inspections consist of "reconstruction" of
the workplace conditions and observations by investigators. The
investigation was prompted by employee complaints.

Barring a settlement, the Gordon-Smith citations will be
considered by an administrative law judge. No settlement
discussion or hearing date has been scheduled, Mr. Dube said.

Genesee Hospital, located on Alexander Street near Monroe
Avenue, closed in 2001. Buckingham Properties is redeveloping
the property as a mixed-use urban center.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO Says Asbestos Found in Toys & Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization says that asbestos
is present in many toys and consumer products, NEWSInferno.com
reports.

Created in 2004 by asbestos victims and their families, the
group has spent over US$165,000 for government-certified
laboratories to examine hundreds of consumer products and to
determine asbestos contamination.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product
Safety Commission have banned several asbestos products and
manufacturers have voluntarily limited asbestos use.

Many feel every exposure to asbestos fibers is associated with
an increased risk of disease, thus, using asbestos-containing
products may explain-in part-why some non-smokers get lung
cancer and persons with no occupational exposures develop
mesothelioma.

The discovery of asbestos laced toys is one of the most
disturbing discoveries made by the ADAO. Among the asbestos
contaminated toys found by the group:

-- The CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit;

-- Three varieties of Ja-Ru Toy Clay, distributed by Omnimodels;
and

-- Art Skills’ Clay Bucket, where asbestos was found in six
colors of clay.

Other consumer products testing positive for asbestos included:

-- Scotch High Performance and All Weather Duct tapes;

-- DAP Crack Shot Spackling Paste and 33 Window Glazing;

-- Gardner Leak Stopper, where one of the highest asbestos
levels at 30 percent-was reported;

-- Powdered cleansers;

-- Hair rollers;

-- Hot plates;

-- And small appliances.

Products tested were purchased from several national retail
chains, including Wal-Mart, Costco, Toys “R” Us, Home Depot,
Lowe’s, Macy’s, CVS, Bed Bath & Beyond, and others. The product
of greatest concern to some public health experts is the
fingerprint kit which includes fine powders; high levels of two
types of asbestos-five percent-were found in the powders.

Some products contained less than one percent asbestos, which
would not be prohibited under the Partial Asbestos Ban just
passed by the Senate. Industry lobbyists succeeded in diluting
the complete ban and the House will hold hearings on the
legislation and is expected to attempt a complete prohibition of
asbestos-containing products.

Health experts feel any asbestos is potentially hazardous and
even one-percent can represent millions of fibers, so all
asbestos, at any level, should be banned.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Public Health Service, who has been
researching asbestos health issues with the EPA for nearly a
decade found the test results inexcusable, especially since
children-to whom some of the products are marketed-have more
time to exhibit the health effects from exposure to the disease-
causing fibers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCATT Welcomes Commitment to Address Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians has
given a cautious welcome to the U.K. Government’s commitment to
examine a recent decision of the Law Lords that asbestos
campaigners have labeled a “travesty of justice,” abeceder
reports.

In October 2007, the Law Lords ruled that suffers of pleural
plaques would no longer be eligible for compensation. Pleural
plaques are scarring of the lungs. Many of those diagnosed later
develop mesothelioma or other asbestos related diseases.

Although most cases pleural plaques are without symptoms, such a
diagnosis is extremely psychologically damaging. While it is
possible to contract mesothelioma from inhaling a single strand,
pleural plaques only develop through prolonged, heavy exposure
to asbestos.

The issue of the Government overturning the Law Lords decision
was raised in the House of Commons on Dec. 3, 2007 by Michael
Clapham, chair of the UCATT group of MPs.

Mr. Clapham supported by many Labour colleagues won a commitment
that the issue would be closely examined. James Plaskitt the
Parliamentary under Secretary of State at the Department of Work
and Pensions, said, “We want to consider the ruling of the court
and we need to see what happens as the issue is debated in the
Scottish Parliament.”

The possibility that the Scottish Parliament, (which has it own
legal system) may overturn the Law Lords is placing further
pressure on the Government to act.

There is the possibility that people diagnosed with pleural
plaques north of the border would be entitled to compensation,
while those in England would be denied this right.

Alan Ritchie, General Secretary of UCATT, said, “The Government
commitment to look at this issue should be given a cautious
welcome. However every day this ruling goes unchallenged, will
mean that more people will be undiagnosed and uncompensated for
industrial injuries sustained needlessly. Victims of pleural
plaques like all asbestos sufferers deserve justice.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Says SDG&E Workers Deserve New Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw has thrown out a criminal
conviction against San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and two workers,
Fox 6 News reports.

Judge Sabraw ruled that SDG&E and the workers deserve a new
trial on charges that they violated safety standards while
removing asbestos from a Lemon Grove, Calif., site in 2001, The
San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

Judge Sabraw said government investigators used incorrect
methods to collect and test the asbestos samples presented to
jurors.

In a ruling released on Dec. 7, 2007, Judge Sabraw wrote, “The
court is persuaded a serious miscarriage of justice occurred.”
Federal prosecutors and attorneys for the utility were ordered
to return to court on Dec. 21, 2007 to set a new trial date.

Representatives for SDG&E expressed satisfaction with Judge
Sabraw's ruling.

SDG&E faced a fine of US$2 million after the Company was
convicted in July 2007 of three counts of improperly removing
asbestos and one count of making a false statement.

David Williamson, an SDG&E environmental specialist, and Kyle
Rhuebottom, a contractor working for SDG&E, were each convicted
of one count of improperly disposing of asbestos. They faced up
to five years in prison and a US$250,000 fine. A third worker
was acquitted.

The charges involve SDG&E's removal of asbestos from a 16-acre
site on the Lemon Grove-San Diego border. SDG&E had owned the
site, dubbed the Encanto Gas Holder Facility, since the 1950s
and once stored natural gas in the pipes.

The Company sold the land to a developer for about US$1.5
million and removed the pipes. SDG&E stopped the work in
November 2000 after county regulators issued violation notices.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Bank Could Face More Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colleagues of two of Standard Bank Group Ltd.’s contract
employees, who developed mesothelioma, say they believe that
more claims may be filed by people with asbestos disease or from
families of those who may already have died from it, The Star
reports.

Two contract employees who developed cancer after being exposed
to asbestos fibers in the 1970s have been compensated by
Standard Bank. Now, other employees who worked in Standard House
in central Durban, South Africa, are worried about the health
implications.

Ken Krieger and Terry Cowan, who worked as air-conditioning
technicians in the building, were paid settlements by Standard
Bank after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. The condition
affects the protective membranes of the lungs, heart and other
organs.

Mr. Krieger died in March 2006 and Mr. Cowan died in July 2007.
Environmental attorney Richard Spoor had represented the two
men.

Hundreds of workers, including electricians, plumbers and
pneumatic control technicians, are said to have worked in the
ceilings of the building.

A close friend of Mr. Cowan said the steel frame of the building
had been sprayed with asbestos to act as a heat retardant. He
said workers had to move the ceiling tiles to service the air-
conditioning system and where then exposed to the asbestos.

Mr. Cowan’s friend said, “When we opened the tiles, the asbestos
would fall all over us and the workers sitting beneath us in the
offices. It would be like white powder falling over everyone.
None of us wore goggles or masks. We knew about the asbestos,
but in those days we didn't know its dangers.”

Standard Bank said it was aware that "certain fire-retardant
materials containing asbestos" were used in the construction of
Standard House, but said the material was and is still managed
responsibly.

Standard Bank spokesperson Erik Larsen said, “Occupational
health and hygiene assessments by independent experts have
confirmed that it does not pose a health risk to the building's
occupants or visitors.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contact Energy Mulls Closure of N.Z. Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Energy Ltd. is considering the permanent closure of its
New Plymouth, New Zealand, thermal power station after the
surprise discovery of asbestos at the 31-year-old plant,
stuff.co.nz reports.

In September 2007, asbestos was discovered in areas of the New
Plymouth plant where it was not previously believed to be and
the plant was placed on an extended outage.

Contact is consulting with the 50 employees at the 300 megawatt
station about the proposed closure.

Contact chief executive David Baldwin said that options would
involve redeployment of staff to other operations, helping staff
secure new employment in other parts of the sector, redundancy
or retirement.

The New Plymouth plant was used as back-up generation, and took
up to 15 hours to reach full capacity when called on.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pensioner Files Lawsuit v. Wrexham Council
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Jones, a 74-year-old pensioner from North Wales, is
filing a lawsuit against the Wrexham Council for exposing him to
asbestos that led him to develop mesothelioma, and claiming
between GBP150,000 to GBP200,000 in damages, Daily Post reports.

Mr. Jones claims the council failed to provide him with
respiratory protection.

Mr. Jones claims that he contracted mesothelioma after prolonged
exposure to asbestos and asbestos dust in the 30 years he worked
on housing repairs and building inspections.

Between 1961 and 1991, Mr. Jones was employed by Wrexham Rural
District Council and Wrexham Metropolitan District Council on
housing repairs and then inspections, which are covered by
construction and asbestos legislation.

The writ says, “He worked in buildings under demolition,
alteration and construction and on many occasions worked in
close proximity to asbestos based lagging being stripped, mixed
and applied and in close proximity to asbestos insulation board
used for fire insulation, cladding on steel work, partitions and
ceilings, being cut and drilled.”

Manchester lawyers acting for Mr. Jones allege the councils
failed to ensure there was proper circulation of fresh air and
adequate ventilation. They claim the authorities failed to have
Mr. Jones undergo a medical examination, or advise him to be
examined, and that they failed to “heed the warning” that other
employees contracted asbestos related disease.

Mr. Jones’s lawyers claim that the two previous Wrexham councils
failed to react to warnings by Mr. Jones and his workmates about
the excessive quantities of asbestos dust.

The writ says Mr. Jones developed symptoms of mesothelioma in
July 2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Engineer's Kin Gets Wins GBP60T Payout Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of former installation engineer Philip Barr, of
Norwich, England, was awarded GBP60,000 in asbestos-related
compensation, Norwich Evening News 24 reports.

Mr. Barr was 62 when he died from the asbestos-related disease
at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital on Feb. 17, 2007.

Through JMW Solicitors in Manchester, U.K., Mr. Barr's family
was able to trace the company that insured the firm where he
worked when he came into contact with asbestos dust. The unnamed
company has accepted negligence and paid up.

Mr. Barr was diagnosed in November 2006 and one of his three
children, 27-year-old Tina Smith, quit her job to look after him
before he died.

Mrs. Smith said, “The compensation to us as a family gives us a
sense of justice that the company where he worked was negligent
with my father's health and life.”

Mr. Barr was exposed to asbestos dust when he worked as an
installation engineer for a telecommunications firm in
Birmingham from 1977 to 1994.

As he was an installation engineer, Mr. Barr had to crawl over
pipes lagged with asbestos. Part of his tool kit was supplied
with an asbestos blanket and he also used a tub of asbestos
powder on a daily basis.

Mr. Barr moved to Norfolk in 1997 and bought a mobile home in
Newton St. Faiths, working as a maintenance man on the park
homes where he lived.

However, Mr. Barr became ill in September 2006 and his doctor
sent him for a chest x-ray when they found he had fluid on the
lungs. After being diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma, he
underwent a month and a half of chemotherapy treatment but
developed bilateral pneumonia.

The Evening News has highlighted the suffering caused by
asbestos through the Dust of Death campaign which was launched
in 1997 to highlight the plight of workers who were exposed to
asbestos.




ASBESTOS LITIGATION: “Ban Asbestos Act” Faces More Oppositions
----------------------------------------------------------------
After a long battle, the "Ban Asbestos in America Act" was
finally passed in the Senate in October 2007, much to the relief
of advocates for asbestos victims and many others fighting to
cease use of the known carcinogen, according to a Weitz &
Luxenberg P.D. press release dated Dec. 6, 2007.

Celebrations for the ban will have to wait, however, since the
final draft of the bill fails to block all asbestos-containing
products. As a result, many who initially favored the bill are
now disputing its approval.

Jessica Russell, a lawyer in the Asbestos Litigation Unit at
Weitz & Luxenberg, said, “This ban is simply unacceptable. The
threat of asbestos exposure will remain for those working with
the products that haven't been blocked, their family members who
can also be exposed secondarily, and for the public at large
that is unaware of its continued use.”

Last-minute changes to the Act make asbestos exposure a
continued, far-reaching threat. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
reported, for example, that talc-containing asbestos from
upstate New York mines owned by R.T. Vanderbilt had been used
recently in children's art clay. Yet despite the documentation
of mine workers being sickened or killed by exposure to that
talc, the Senate-passed bill does not block the powder from
being sold.

Similarly, a vermiculite ore mine in Libby, Mont., shut down in
1990 due to its asbestos contamination and the hundreds of
deaths it caused, could potentially reopen without the firmer
restrictions originally proposed.

In October 2007, every Senate member voted for the Act, first
introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Scientists and
physicians supported it as well, along with victims and widows
who have suffered from the effects of the dangerous substance.
Proponents of the bill were disappointed to learn that the
language had been watered down and much of what they had fought
for had been omitted.

Founded in 1986, Weitz & Luxenberg is a plaintiffs' law firm in
America. The firm has played roles in national and local
litigations involving asbestos, DES, silicone breast implants,
medical malpractice, and general negligence.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: R.I. Widow Sues 51 Defendants in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Barton of Rhode Island sued 51 defendant corporations in
an asbestos-related lawsuit filed on Nov. 28, 2007 in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Robert Barton, Mrs. Barton's husband, was employed in the U.S.
Navy from 1944-46, as a metallurgist and maintenance man for New
England Malleable Iron Foundry in Warrick, R.I., from 1946 to
1981, and as a carpenter, drywaller and floor tiler at various
residential sites in Rhode Island from 1957 to 1976.

Mrs. Barton claims that during the course of his employment and
during home and automotive repairs, Mr. Barton was exposed to
and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers
emanating from certain products he was working with and around
causing him to contract mesothelioma.

Mrs. Barton alleges the defendants are guilty of willful and
wanton misconduct. She claims that before Mr. Barton died, he
had to undergo costly medical treatment and that he suffered
great physical pain and mental anguish as a result of his
asbestos exposure.

Mrs. Barton also alleges that the defendants included asbestos
in their products even when adequate substitutes were available
and failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning
the safe methods of working with and around asbestos.

Mrs. Barton claims that the defendants failed to require and
advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or
prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

Mrs. Barton also claims that she has sought, but has been unable
to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information
from the defendants leading him to believe the defendants
destroyed documents related to asbestos.

Mrs. Barton claims that as a result of each defendant breaching
its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents
and information she has been prejudiced and impaired in proving
claims against all potential parties.

Mrs. Barton also claims she became liable for Mr. Barton's
funeral and burial expenses and has been deprived of his means
and support.

Represented by Randy Gori of Edwardsville, Ill., Mrs. Barton
seeks damages in excess of US$500,000, plus costs of the suit.

Case No. 07 L 1004 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Daniel
Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Connelley Action Filed in W.Va. v. 65 Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vera Kane Stamper filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 65
companies on Nov. 8, 2007 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., in
which the suit was filed on behalf of the estate of Robert Lynn
Connelley, Sr., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Connelley worked around asbestos and other harmful minerals
manufactured, supplied, sold, distributed and installed by the
defendants. According to the suit, Mr. Connelley was not
informed of the danger of asbestos or told to wear safety
apparel and safety equipment.

Ms. Stamper claims the companies are negligent by not informing
their employees of the dangers of asbestos, and that negligence
caused Mr. Connelley to develop mesothelioma.

The suit says that, because of his disease, Mr. Connelley
suffered medical expenses, great pain, immense suffering,
embarrassment, inconvenience and loss of quality and enjoyment
of his life.

Mr. Connelley's family also claims they suffered the loss of his
general services, companionship and society, since he contracted
mesothelioma, which ultimately caused his death.

In the 12-count suit, Ms. Stamper seeks compensatory and
punitive damages for the estate of Mr. Connelley.

Attorney Cindy K. Kiblinger represents Ms. Stamper.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number 07-C-2423 will be assigned to
a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Class Action v. 105 Firms Brought in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh attorney David Chervenick, on Nov. 13, 2007, filed a
class action asbestos lawsuit against 105 companies on behalf of
six families in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.

The suits are in behalf of Ruben J. and Erma Birkhimer; Joyce
Farley, on behalf of the estate of Max O. Farley; Joseph
Fernandez; Ida Mae and Harold Hoit; Shirley McClain, on behalf
of the estate of Kenneth B. McClain; and Ronald and Joyce Rouse.

The defendants include 12 chemical processing plants, research
facilities, electrical and steam generating plants and
industrial facilities located in West Virginia, including
Weirton Steel Corp., in Weirton, W.Va.

Ruben Birkhimer, of Burgettstown, Pa., worked as a laborer,
utility man and truck driver at Weirton Steel and DuPont
Chemical in Weirton, W.Va. He has asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Joyce Farley is the administratrix of the estate of Max O.
Farley. Mr. Farley, who is deceased, worked as a steelworker for
H.K. Porter Inc./Connor Steel. He had asbestosis and lung
cancer.

Joseph Fernandez, of New Cumberland, W.Va., worked as an
electrician, laborer and craneman at Weirton Steel. He has
asbestosis and lung cancer.

Ida Mae and Harold Hoit live in Wellsburg, W.Va. Ida Mae Hoit is
the wife and mother of men who worked at Weirton Steel. While
living in the same house as her husband and son, she was exposed
to asbestos-containing dust from their clothes. She now has
asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Shirley McClain is the personal representative of the estate of
Kenneth B. McClain, of Wintersville, Ohio. Mr. McClain was a
steelworker at Weirton Steel. He had asbestosis and lung cancer.

Ronald Rouse Sr., of Mingo Junction, Ohio, worked as a
pipefitter and truck driver for Weirton Steel. He has
asbestosis.

Mr. Chervenick claims the injuries of the plaintiffs are due in
part to actions and events that occurred as a result of the
defendants doing business in West Virginia.

The suits also state the defendants are responsible for the
wrongful deaths of the deceased workers, who died as a direct
result of exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. The
suits say those workers suffered severe physical pain, mental
anguish, worry, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of income and
medical expenses.

Also, the suits seek damages for a loss of consortium. The suits
claim the families of the deceased plaintiffs suffered loss of
general services, companionship and society since their loved
one contracted his or her diseases.

In the 18-count suits, the plaintiffs seek medical monitoring,
punitive damages and compensatory damages.

Charleston, W.Va., attorney Scott Segal is also counsel for the
plaintiffs.

Kanawha Circuit Court case numbers 07-C-2437 to 07-C-2442 will
be assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fears Over Dust from Trucks' Tires Spread
----------------------------------------------------------------
It is feared asbestos tailings from the Baryulgil mine near
Grafton, New South Wales, Australia, are being spread by
vehicles using the area's gravel roads, ABC News reports.

Conservationists say tailings from the mine were used in local
road construction and logging trucks draw up plumes of the
contaminated dust.

The James Hardie Industries N.V. mine operated for more than 30
years until it closed in 1981.

John Tredrea from the Nimbin Environment Centre says lives are
still being put at risk, with residents, tourist vehicles and
animals being blanketed in potentially deadly dust.

Mr. Treadrea said, “People on their way to Washpool World
Heritage National Park, if they happen to be behind a logging
truck, the plume of dust being sucked off the road is massive,
it's 10 times wider than the truck itself.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Builder Admits to Improper Hazard Disposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sweeney, a 32-year-old builder from Huyton, Merseyside,
U.K., admitted to a charge of dumping waste without proper
license, Liverpool Echo reports.

Mr. Sweeney allegedly dumped a van full of asbestos in the
middle of a busy Merseyside village. Wirral magistrates court
heard the vehicle’s doors were left open, despite its
potentially fatal cargo.

Gregory Eyitene, prosecuting, told magistrates the van and its
contents sparked a major operation by Wirral council in July
2007 amid a “very real” danger posed to the public.

Mr. Eyitene said Merseyside Police called in environmental
health officials after complaints about the Platinum Roller
Shutters vehicle, which had been dumped next to Aldi
supermarket, in May Road, Heswall.

Council officers then had to call in the services of laboratory
experts to conduct expensive tests on the material.

Mr. Eyitene said the results confirmed it was “highly dangerous”
asbestos, which can cause lung cancer if breathed in.

Mike Lea, defending, said Mr. Sweeney was a partner in Platinum
Roller Shutters in Heswall before the business went bust.

Mr. Lea said Mr. Sweeney had lent the van to sub-contractors and
could not explain how the asbestos got into it.

Challenged to name the people responsible for operating the
vehicle, Mr. Sweeney claimed he handed it over when some men
turned up for work, but he did know who they were. He said he
was self-employed and earned around GBP100 a week.

District Judge Aled Jones fined Sweeney GBP500 and ordered him
to pay the GBP1,519 cost of the asbestos analysis and court
costs of GBP390. He also made a forfeiture order, which allowed
Wirral council to seize and destroy the van.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Linked to U.K. Pensioner's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Peterborough Magistrates' Court heard that the
death of 75-year-old pensioner Denis Atkinson was linked to
asbestos, The Evening Telegraph reports.

The inquest heard that it was not uncommon to find people
succumbing to industrial disease long after first coming into
contact with the material.

At Peterborough Magistrates' Court in Peterborough, England, Mr.
Atkinson's widow Heather told how she discovered his CV only
after his funeral. It showed Mr. Atkinson had been a site worker
building pre-fabricated units made partly from asbestos between
1953 and 1958 in Sussex.

Years later, Mr. Atkinson was diagnosed with mesothelioma and
died on Oct. 14, 2007 at Peterborough District Hospital.

Mr. Atkinson, a professional ice skater and railway dock worker,
also suffered from chronic pulmonary disease and emphysema.

Coroner Gordon Ryall recording a verdict of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Loses Appeal of Ruling in Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and executives, who were criminally charged in
2005 with asbestos contamination in Libby, Mont., lost a bid to
challenge an earlier court ruling that allowed one of the
government's charges to stand, The Baltimore Sun reports.

The move would have further delayed the trial, which has
undergone a series of postponements and legal appeals.

On Dec. 5, 2007, a San Francisco federal appeals court declined
to reconsider an earlier decision by three of its judges
upholding the government charge of "knowing endangerment"
against the Columbia-based chemical manufacturer. Grace had
asked the court to review the decision en banc, meaning with a
full panel of judges.

The denial moves the case "a step closer to trial" assuming
Grace does not ask the Supreme Court to review the issue, said
Allen M. Brabender, who is among the Justice Department
attorneys prosecuting the case.

Mr. Brabender said he had hoped to take the case to trial in
September 2005, but postponements and legal appeals of pretrial
rulings have thrown off the schedule.

A second Grace request for appeal, which will determine whether
certain government witnesses may testify against the Company,
was granted earlier in 2007 and will be heard by the full 11-
judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal grand jury indicted Grace and seven executives, one of
whom has since died, in February 2005, charging them with
knowingly exposing residents of Libby, Mont., to asbestos
contamination.

The government alleges that the contamination came from a
vermiculite mine that Grace maintained nearby from the early
1960s through 1990. Officials were also accused of wire fraud,
obstructing government cleanup efforts and concealing
information.

In 2006, the Company was ordered to pay roughly US$55 million to
the Environmental Protection Agency, which cleaned up land and
buildings around the former mine.

The government's indictment said 1,200 people have become sick
or died from the asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid to Remove Asbestos From Bldg. Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
After recommendations from a consultant, the Dale County
Commission in Ozark, Ala., unanimously approved a bid for
service to rid asbestos from portions of the Creel Richardson
Building, Dothan Eagle reports.

County maintenance supervisor John Dunn said Lakeshore
Environmental of Birmingham, Ala., will come in to remove and
dispose of asbestos in the upstairs and downstairs heating
ventilation and air conditioning systems units and in the boiler
room.

Mr. Dunn said concerns from Dale County School Superintendent
Phillip Parker, whose office is in the building, prompted the
staff to hire a consultant.

Mr. Dunn said, “We were definitely concerned to make sure
everything was okay. You have to check on these things.
Otherwise you trash people’s tax dollars.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Family May Lose Payout in Postcode Lottery
----------------------------------------------------------------
A family in the United Kingdom, haunted by industrial disease,
now faces losing out in a postcode lottery, The Observer
reports.

People suffering from pleural plaques through exposure to
asbestos will soon be facing a postcode lottery to determine
whether they qualify for compensation.

While about 1,800 people die of asbestos-related diseases each
year in Britain, a number that is rising, some commentators have
labelled plaques sufferers as “the worried well” and the House
of Lords recently ruled that the condition was not worthy of
compensation.

Asbestos has left its mark on three generations of 55-year-old
Valerie Pask's family. Her brother died from mesothelioma. Her
father worked all his life as a lagger, fitting insulation at
power stations. He died of heart disease in 1980, at the age of
65, with his death certificate recording that the condition was
“related to asbestosis.”

However, the tragedy does not end there. Ms. Pask and her three
sisters would clean their father's dust-covered overalls when he
came back from the power stations, where he eventually became a
site manager.

In October 2007, the Law Lords refused to overrule an appeal
court ruling in January 2006 preventing plaques sufferers from
claiming damages (in Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co).

Lord Hoffman ruled, “Proof of damage is an essential element in
a claim in negligence and in my opinion the symptomless plaques
are not compensatable.”

The Scottish government announced in December 2007 that it
intended to reverse the Law Lords' ruling by introducing new
legislation.

Nonetheless, insurers had been paying out for plaques for 20
years prior to the Rothwell case and payouts have been modest.
Since the January 2006 ruling, “full and final” damages, which
settle the case once and for all, have been cut from GBP12,500-
GBP20,000 to GBP5,000-GBP7,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 58 Miners Worked in Minnesota's Iron Range
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Minnesota state Health Department report on Dec. 7, 2007
states that the 58 taconite miners who contracted mesothelioma
worked in mines across Minnesota's Iron Range, at least one for
as little as a month but others for decades, The Associated
Press reports.

The report filled in some background on the workers who got
mesothelioma. Scientists say the data will help as they prepare
three large studies of the cancer and miners' health.

Mesothelioma has long worried Iron Rangers, who were furious
when state health authorities waited a year to release
information about 35 of the cases. The department's head, Dianne
Mandernach, resigned in September 2007 after intense criticism.
Her successor, Commissioner Sanne Magnan, promised to share data
quickly.

The latest report does not contain the level of detail
researchers need to explain how the workers got the cancer,
particularly information on where each sickened worker labored
in the mine and what dust or fibers they might have been exposed
to.

The taconite industry mines low-grade iron ore from from several
sites in northeastern Minnesota, processes it then the resulting
pellets are shipped to steel mills.

Researchers are almost done with a detailed plan for the three
proposed studies, and aim to ask lawmakers for money next
session. They will need three to five years to complete their
work, said Dr. Jeff Mandel, a University of Minnesota
epidemiologist who will lead the studies, and Dr. Alan Bender,
Dr. Mandel's counterpart at the health agency.

Sen. Tom Bakk, one of the Iron Range lawmakers who have
criticized the Health Department, said he expects Gov. Tim
Pawlenty to include money for the studies in his 2008 budget
request to the Legislature.

Northeastern Minnesota's elevated mesothelioma rate is partly
explained by cases among former employees of Conwed Corp., where
ceiling tiles were made using asbestos in Cloquet. The rate in
the surrounding county is four times higher than in the rest of
the state, according to the report.

However, three of the 58 miners who got the cancer also worked
at Conwed, leaving researchers to puzzle over how the other 55
got the disease.

More than half of the men diagnosed worked in the mining
industry for five or fewer years. Picklands Mather and U.S.
Steel were the companies with the most workers affected.

The report also delved into the work histories of 41 cases
identified since 2006. They held at least 122 different mining
jobs as far back as 1942.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Court Upholds Ruling in Dahlke Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Oregon upheld the Clackamas County
Circuit Court's ruling, which granted summary judgment in the
defendants' favor, in an asbestos-related action filed by Floyd
Dahlke, personal representative of the Estate of Clarence L.
Simons.

The suit is styled Floyd Dahlke, personal representative of the
Estate of Clarence L. Simons, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
Cascade Acoustics Inc., Copenhagen Inc. (f/k/a Copenhagen
Mechanical Contractors), J.E. Dunn Northwest Inc. (d/b/a Donald
M. Drake Co.), J.F. Shea Company Inc., J.M. Harder Plumbing and
Heating LLC, Rowland Plumbing Co., Metalclad Insulation Corp.
(as successor-in-interest to Pacific Asbestos), and Metalclad
Insulation Corp. of Oregon (as successor-in-interest to Pacific
Asbestos), Defendants below, and FMD Corp. (f/k/a Donald M.
Drake Co. and Drake Management Co. (f/k/a Donald M. Drake Co.),
Defendants-Respondents.

Judges Edmonds, Wollheim, and Sercombe entered judgment of Case
No. CCV0304209; A127280 on Nov. 7, 2007.

The Donald M. Drake Co. was formed in the 1920s and, between
1944 and 1972, operated a construction business under that name.
In 1949, the Donald M. Drake Co. served as the general
contractor for the construction of Binnsmead School.

Mr. Simons, who worked as a custodian for various Portland,
Ore., public schools, worked at Binnsmead in 1978 and 1979.

In 1972, the Donald M. Drake Co. changed its name to FMD Corp.
and sold certain assets related to its construction business to
a newly created subsidiary, including the right to use the
"Donald M. Drake Company" name.

The newly created Donald M. Drake Co., later known as Drake
Management Co. (Drake Management), took over responsibility for
completing construction jobs in progress  and performed all
future construction work.

Meanwhile, FMD retained real estate, construction equipment, and
the liabilities of the original Donald M. Drake Co. Between 1973
and 1986, FMD engaged primarily in the business of equipment
leasing and real estate development, while Drake Management
engaged in construction operations.

The companies had overlapping directors, and FMD held shares in
Drake Management. In 1986, FMD was voluntarily dissolved, and
the company assets passed to the shareholders of FMD.

Fifteen years later, in April 2001, Mr. Simons died of
mesothelioma. In 2003, Mr. Dahlke filed this action against FMD
and Drake Management, alleging strict liability and negligence
claims based on the theory that Mr. Simons' death was caused by  
exposure to fibers released from asbestos-containing products at
Binnsmead School.

Mr. Dahlke alleged that FMD, formerly known as the Donald M.
Drake Co., was the general contractor for the construction of
the school and had supplied and installed the asbestos-
containing products.

FMD and Drake Management moved for summary judgment on Mr.
Dahlke's claims. The trial court granted defendants' motions.

Mr. Dahlke appealed.

The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's ruling.

Meagan A. Flynn argued the cause for Floyd Dahlke, personal
representative of the Estate of Clarence L. Simons. With her on
the briefs was Preston Bunnell & Flynn LLP.

Thomas W. Sondag argued the cause for respondents. On the brief
were Jeffry S. Garrett and Lane Powell PC. With him on the reply
brief were Stephen P. McCarthy and Lane Powell PC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Satisfies All Chapter 11 Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Burton R. Lifland of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York has ruled that Dana Corp. has
satisfied all Chapter 11 requirements, Indiana Business News
reports.

Judge Lifland has asked Dana to submit an order confirming its
reorganization plan. Dana hopes to emerge from bankruptcy by the
end of January 2008.

During a confirmation hearing on Dec. 12, 2007 for Dana's case,
Judge Lifland announced that he will "entertain an appropriate
order of confirmation" with respect to the Company's Plan of
Reorganization. The Company is expected to submit the order of
confirmation by Dec. 21, 2007.

Dana Chairman and CEO Mike Burns said, “This is another
important step toward our emergence as a financially stable
company that is positioned to compete vigorously in our global
markets.”

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Corp. supplies axles; driveshafts; and
structural, sealing, and thermal management products; as well as
genuine service parts. The Company's customer base includes
vehicle and engine manufacturers in the automotive, commercial
vehicle, and off-highway markets. The Company's continuing
operations employ about 35,000 people in 26 countries and
reported 2006 sales of US$8.5 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Elliott Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, in an
asbestos insurance coverage dispute, denied Elliott Co.'s cross
motion for summary judgment. The District Court also denied
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.'s motion for summary judgment.

The suit is styled Elliott Co., Plaintiff, v. Liberty Mutual
Insurance Co., Defendant.

U.S. District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan entered judgment of Case
No. 1:05 CV 1387 on Nov. 2, 2007.

Elliott sought insurance coverage for asbestos related claims
from Liberty Mutual, under policies Liberty Mutual issued to
Carrier Corp. from 1957 to 1963.

On July 31, 1957, Elliott merged with Carrier. As part of the
merger, the Elliott Co. was dissolved and operated as a division
of Carrier (Elliott Division). Liberty insured Carrier from the
time of the merger through Jan. 1, 1963.

Carrier was a named insured on the policies during the relevant
period (Carrier Policies), as was "The Elliott Co., A Division
of Carrier Corp." The Carrier Policies included broad
occurrence-based general liability coverage for bodily and
personal injuries related to an insured's products.

In 1979, United Technologies Corp. acquired Carrier. The Elliott
Division continued as an unincorporated division of Carrier
until Aug. 21, 1981, when it was incorporated as Elliott
Turbomachinery Inc. (Elliott Turbo).

Carrier, UTC and Elliott Turbo entered into "an Agreement and
Plan of Reorganization and Corporate Separation" dated Dec. 21,
1981 (Separation Agreement).

Thereafter, in 1987, UTC sold Elliott Turbo to a group of
outside investors pursuant to a Stock and Asset Purchase
Agreement (Purchase Agreement).

UTC owned all of the stock of Elliott Turbo.

The parties cross moved for summary judgment on the issue of
whether Liberty Mutual is obligated to provide coverage to
Elliott for asbestos-related occurrences during the 1957-1963
time period.

Michael H. Ginsberg, Dana Biaocco, Jones Day, Pittsburgh,
Christos N. Georgalis, Erin L. Dickinson, Mark B. Carson, Paula
Gallito Shakelton, Jones Day, Cleveland, Ohio, represented
Elliott Co.

Brad A. Rimmel, Susan Squire Box, Roetzel & Andress, Akron,
Ohio, John C. Sullivan, Post & Schell, Philadelphia, represented
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Utica Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. California, granted Liberty Mutual
Insurance Co.'s motions to intervene and set aside entry of
default and denied Utica Mutual Insurance Co.'s motion for
default judgment in an asbestos-related insurance action
involving Hamilton Supply Co.

The suit was styled Utica Mutual Ins. Co., Plaintiff, v.
Hamilton Supply Co., Defendant.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston entered judgment of Case No. C
06-07846 SI on Nov. 5, 2007.

Years ago, Hamilton Supply sold plumbing products that allegedly
contained asbestos. At least four lawsuits have been brought
against Hamilton Supply (as well as against other defendants) in
California superior courts alleging injury or death due to
asbestos exposure from defendants' plumbing products.

Utica issued general liability insurance policies to Hamilton
Supply for three policy periods from Jan. 1, 1988, through Jan.
1, 1991. Once it became aware of the asbestos suits, Utica
agreed to defend Hamilton Supply but reserved its rights to seek
reimbursement of the costs of defending the suits and any money
paid out if it was later determined that plaintiff's insurance
policy did not actually cover Hamilton Supply's liability for
its plumbing products.

Utica claimed that at the time it entered into the policy and
throughout the policy period, it was unaware that Hamilton
Supply had a prior history of supplying plumbing products.
Instead, Utica claimed it was aware only that Hamilton Supply
was a property owner and landlord.

Utica now believed that Hamilton Supply was in the plumbing
supply business from 1975 through 1981, when it sold its
products business to Amfac Corp.

Utica filed this complaint on Dec. 22, 2006. Utica also sought a
declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Hamilton
Supply in the asbestos lawsuits filed in state court and sought
reimbursement for costs incurred in defending these suits to
date.

Utica's claim for declaratory relief is based in part on its
additional allegations that Hamilton Supply and its owner Joseph
Konis have failed to cooperate in defending the asbestos
lawsuits by failing to provide timely notice of the suits,
refusing to cooperate in the defense without compensation for
Mr. Konis' time, and permitting Hamilton Supply to become a
suspended corporation, such that it cannot defend against the
suits.

Default was entered against Hamilton Supply on June 21, 2007,
after Hamilton Supply failed to file a responsive pleading.
Utica now moved for a default judgment.

In addition to Utica, Hamilton Supply had purchased insurance
policies from many other insurers over the years. A group of
five of Hamilton Supply's insurers entered into a cost-sharing
agreement to share the costs of defending the asbestos lawsuits.
Utica was allotted the largest share because it had insured
Hamilton Supply for the longest time.

One of the other insurers is Liberty Mutual, which issued a
policy to Hamilton Supply from Sept. 1, 1977, through Sept. 1,
1979. Liberty Mutual now sought to intervene as a defendant in
Utica's suit and asked the Court to set aside the entry of
default, arguing that if the Court enters a default judgment for
plaintiff, Liberty Mutual will be forced to cover a larger share
of the costs of the asbestos lawsuits because Utica will
withdraw from the cost-sharing agreement.

Liberty Mutual claimed it was not aware that Utica had filed
this suit until June 26, 2007, when another of Hamilton Supply's
insurers notified Liberty Mutual that default had been entered.

Liberty Mutual conceded, however, that prior to Utica's filing
of the lawsuit in December 2006, Utica had notified Liberty
Mutual and Hamilton Supply's other insurers that it intended to
file this lawsuit. On Nov. 7, 2006, roughly one month prior to
the filing of the lawsuit, Utica sent an email to Liberty Mutual
and the other  insurers stating that "Utica anticipates filing
its DJ [declaratory judgment] action by the end of the month.”

On Nov. 2, 2007, the District Court heard oral argument on
Utica's motion for default judgment and the motions by Liberty
Mutual to intervene and to set aside entry of default.

Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers
submitted, the Court granted Liberty Mutual's motions to
intervene and set aside entry of default, and denied Utica's
motion for default judgment.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Panolam Ind. Unit Records 299 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Panolam Industries Inc. states that, as of Sept. 30, 2007, 299
workers’ compensation claims have been filed alleging injury due
to exposure to asbestos and unidentified chemicals of which
about 195 claimants are current employees of its subsidiary
Nevamar Holding Corp.

About eight of the 299 claimants were hired by Nevamar after
July 1, 2002, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 10,
2007.

During 2006, Nevamar was named a defendant in numerous workers
compensation claims filed on behalf of current and former
employees at the Hampton, S.C., facility alleging injury in the
course of employment due to alleged exposure to asbestos and
unidentified chemicals.

Under the ownership of Westinghouse Electric Corp., the Hampton,
S.C., facility manufactured asbestos-based products until about
1975.

In 2004 and 2005, Nevamar, Westinghouse and International Paper
Co. settled 10 workers compensation claims related to alleged
asbestos exposure.

Under a 2005 agreement with International Paper, Nevamar’s
liability for workers compensation claims related to alleged
exposure to asbestos brought by employees hired before July 1,
2002, is capped at 15 percent of any damages it shares with
International Paper until Nevamar has paid an aggregate of
US$700,000, at which point the Company has no responsibility for
any additional shared damages.

Employees hired by Nevamar after July 1, 2002 and who file
claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos are not covered
by this indemnity agreement.


Company Profile:

Panolam Industries Inc.
20 Progress Dr.
Shelton, Conn. 06484
Phone: 203-925-1556
Fax: 203-225-0050
Toll Free: 800-672-6652
http://www.panolam.com

Description:
Panolam Industries International Inc. designs, manufactures and
distributes decorative overlay products, primarily thermally
fused melamine panels (TFMs) and high-pressure laminate sheets
(HPLs), throughout Canada and the United States. The Company
wholly-owns the following companies: Panolam Industries Ltd.,
Panolam Industries Inc., Pioneer Plastics Corp., and Nevamar
Holding Corp.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Squitieri & Fearon Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP has filed a securities fraud class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on behalf of purchasers of Syntax-Brillian Corp.
securities between May 1, 2007 and September 13, 2007.

The Complaint charges that Syntax-Brillian Corp., a designer,
developer and distributor of high definition televisions (HDTVs)
in liquid crystal display (LCD) and liquid crystal silicon
(LCoS) formats, has reported explosive growth due largely to
reportedly increased sales to a Chinese distributor South China
House of Technology (SCHOT).

Throughout 2007, up to late August 2007, the Company and
defendants have been issuing a series of increasing bullish
statements about the Company's sales and revenues and prospects
and also selling stock on two occasions (May 2007 and August
2007) in the midst of the bullish revenue and profit guidance
statements.

The statements served their purpose: Syntax stock price was
buoyed by these statements in the $6-$7 range allowing Syntax to
sell hundreds of millions of dollars of stock.

On September 13, 2007, after disclosure of previously concealed
omitted facts, including a failure of adequate accounting
systems and an approximately 35% shortfall in previously
anticipated revenues, the price of Syntax stock fell over 30%
causing loss and damage to all purchasers of Syntax stock on the
open market.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 15,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

           Lee Squitieri
           Squitieri & Fearon, LLP
           Phone: (212) 421-6492
           E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com


                           *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *